Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITION

St. John's School, Lewisham

Mr. C. Johnson: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I desire to present a Petition, signed by about 2,800 residents of the Borough of Lewisham and elsewhere, referring to the urgent and long overdue need for the rebuilding of St. John's Church of England Primary School in Bromley Road.
The Petition calls attention to the fact that St. John's School was built over a century ago and now has a school population nearly double that for which is was originally designed. In consequence, it is quite inadequate for the needs of the day and the conditions there are most unsatisfactory. The Petition also shows that the need for its rebuilding has been accepted for many years past and that a cleared site has been available for a new school since 1952. Nevertheless, though the present school has been included in the rebuilding programme of the London County Council on at least two occasions, approval has been continuously withheld by the Minister of Education.
Wherefore your Petitioners humbly pray that this honourable House urge the Minister of Education to reconsider his decision and to give approval to the rebuilding of St. John's School.
The Petition concludes:
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

Palace of Westminster (Cloister Court)

Mr. H. Clark: asked the Minister of Works what would be the cost of preparing the soil and resowing the grass in the Cloister Court of the Palace of Westminster.

The Minister of Works (Lord John Hope): About £80. But this Courtyard has been returfed a number of times in the last few years, it gets no sunlight and the grass will not grow. I therefore propose, with the agreement of the Palace authorities, to replace grass by paving. The work is due to be carried out in the Long Recess.

Mr. Clark: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply and say how entirely I agree with the solution which he has arrived at?

Old Sarum (Pillbox)

Lord Balniel: asked the Minister of Works when he proposes to remove the derelict pillbox from the iron age ramparts of the Old Sarum ancient monument.

Lord John Hope: I do not propose to remove the pillbox. It is not obscuring any feature of archaeological importance and it has an interest of its own in illustrating the tactical significance of ancient military sites continuing into our own times.

Lord Balniel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the only interest which this pillbox has in itself is the fact that a defensive fortification erected in the last few years is clearly derelict whereas the iron age ramparts are in excellent condition? Surely he can take it on himself to remove what is really an offence in an ancient monument?

Lord John Hope: If it were an offence there would be no question about moving it. But it is a small dot in hundreds of yards of ramparts, and I think it has an interest, and will have as the years go by, for what it is meant to be.

No. 10 Downing Street

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Works if he will grant facilities for the public to visit No. 10 Downing Street while the Prime Minister is not in occupation either before or after the reconstruction of these premises.

Lord John Hope: There is no time to lose if the reconstruction programme is to be kept and I regret I cannot arrange opening to the public before work begins. I will bear in mind the possibility of opening after the work is complete.

Mr. Lipton: I am partially grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the latter part of his reply. Is he aware that a large number of people will be sadly disappointed that the Government are not able to take advantage of the unique opportunity which presents itself for a week or two to allow the public to see the inside of one of Britain's most famous and historic buildings?

Lord John Hope: I would very much have liked to have done so had it been possible. But I am sure the House will agree that it is important that we should not fall short on this programme, which is a very tight one. I am satisfied that it is in the public interest that this should not be done now.

St. James's Park (Leaflet)

Mr. Collard: asked the Minister of Works if he will arrange for the sale to the public, in St. James's Park, of pictorial leaflets illustrating the types of ducks and geese which frequent the lake there.

Lord John Hope: I should like to do something on these lines, if I can, and I am looking into the possibilities.

Mr. Collard: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for looking into the possibilities. While one is aware that there is a key to these birds on a board at one corner of the lake, nevertheless it is quite useless to anyone who wants to spot birds in other parts of the lake. If my right hon. Friend comes to a favourable conclusion as a result of his consideration, may I hope it will be taken generally as a compliment to these birds, which I think I am right in saying are held in great esteem both here and outside?

Lord John Hope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. While we do not any of us want to call our geese swans, I shall do my best to see what can be done by way of description of these birds.

Brick Supplies

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Works what was the number of bricks produced this year up to the latest convenient date; and what are the comparable figures for 1955 and 1957.

Lord John Hope: In the first five months of 1960 brick production amounted to 3,021 million. Comparable figures for 1955 and 1957 were 2,866 million and 2,934 million, respectively.

Mr. Dodds: While thanking the Minister for those figures, may I ask if he is aware that the production of bricks is not keeping pace with demand? Did he not rather mislead the House last week about the situation when he said that deliveries showed a post-war record, when in fact the stock of bricks has dropped from 490 million in 1958 to 262 million in 1959, and is now down to 100 million, which is well below what it has been for many years? Is not this encouraging the development of a black market in bricks? Is he aware that the situation is getting very much worse and is holding up house building?

Lord John Hope: I do not think I misled the House at all. I made it quite clear that the record to which I referred was a record of production. As the hon. Member knows, no figures of stocks held by builders are collected, but they are probably considerable.

Sir T. Moore: Will my right hon. Friend realise that if he would give a definite guarantee of forty years' life for brick earth he would go a long way towards securing an increase in the production of bricks?

Lord John Hope: I very much hope that the rise in the curve of production will continue without such a forty-year guarantee.

Mr. Manuel: Is the Minister of Works aware that great quantities of bricks are being used to build modern garages and filling stations, for which I understand money is put up by oil companies? This happens all over the United King


dom and is causing an artificial shortage of bricks for essential purposes such as house building.

Mr. Dodds: I beg to give notice that, owing to the complacency of the Minister and the unsatisfactory Answer he has given, I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Historic Buildings

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Works how many historic houses on the waiting list of the Historic Buildings Council for England at the end of December, 1959, and considered by them to be of outstanding interest, have now had the repairs started; and how many still remain without the offer of a grant.

Lord John Hope: There were thirty-one historic buildings on the waiting list at 31st December, 1959; grants have been offered in six cases and will be offered in a further five if inquiries show that they are needed. In none of these cases has repair work yet started. One application has been withdrawn. In nineteen cases, applicants have been informed that no grant can be offered.

Mr. Boyden: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with his own Council that his cut of £200,000 in the year just ended has signed the death warrant of many fine historic buildings? Can he give an assurance that in the next year that will be restored?

Lord John Hope: If the hon. Member looks at my Answer given on this point last week, he will see that we are looking into the whole question. It is a pity to use exaggerated language, and in that I would include the words "death warrant".

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Works what improved arrangements he has made for the preservation of historic buildings of outstanding group value.

Lord John Hope: I have recently told the Historic Buildings Council that I am prepared to consider recommendations for grants to preserve buildings in defined groups of outstanding historic or architectural interest. I must however express the hope that local authorities will take the lead in this field of preservation.

Mr. Boyden: Why does the right hon. Gentleman expect local authorities to take the lead? Surely the Government should take the lead in the matter? Could he be more specific about the amount of grant he proposes to offer and the steps he proposes to take?

Lord John Hope: I have answered the hon. Member's Question. I do not want to go further on the main point. The reason I said what I said about local authorities is that I am very anxious that demands for help for groups should not prejudice what I am able to do to help individually beautiful houses.

Mr. H. Hynd: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is more than one point of view among hon. Members on the question of giving grants of money to wealthy occupiers of historic houses?

Sir J. Maitland: Will my right hon. Friend say whether this money is coming from an existing fund or whether a new fund is to be formed?

Lord John Hope: The fund came into existence as a result of the appropriate Act passed in order to enable this help to be given.

Sir J. Maitland: This is for a group?

Lord John Hope: No, it is the same fund.

Dr. Stross: Does the reply of the Minister mean that, as from now, if there be a street which should be preserved as a whole, despite the fact that one or two buildings in the street are not of real merit, the street as a whole can be preserved and a grant will be made available?

Lord John Hope: That is a hypothetical case. What it means is that only in exceptional cases would a grant be given, just as in the case of individual applications. The difficulty will be to see where to draw the line when a request is received for a group of houses to be helped. It will not be easy.

Queen Margaret Shrine, Dunfermline Abbey

Dr. A. Thompson: asked the Minister of Works on what date he received a letter from Mrs. Dow Birrell, of 10, Abbey Park Place, Dunfermline, forwarded to him by the hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs, stating that on


the occasion of the annual pilgrimage of Catholics to the shrine of Queen Margaret in Dunfermline Abbey, an ancient monument maintained by his Department, the pilgrims found that the doors had been locked at 4.15 p.m. in spite of the fact that they are customarily open on Sundays, April to September, until 5.30 p.m.; what reply he has sent; and whether he will inquire into the matter.

Lord John Hope: I received the letter on 23rd June and a reply was sent to the hon. Member today. The nave of Dunfermline Abbey was closed until 4.15 p.m. on Sunday, 12th June, at the request of the Kirk Session of Abbey Church whilst a special children's service was being held in the Church. The closing of the nave on such occasions is in accordance with long-standing custom and by arrangement with the Kirk Session. The organisers of the pilgrimage were given prior notice of this service and asked to restrict ther visit to the period between 4.30 p.m. and 5.30 p.m.

Dr. Thompson: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him to bear in mind that, according to Mrs. Birrell, this is not the first time that access to the shrine has been denied to pilgrims? In previous years pilgrims have had to climb over a gate to lay a wreath on the shrine of Queen Margaret. While appreciating that there was no vindictive intent in this case, may I ask the Minister to ensure that in future access will be given to pilgrims, because I have received letters from both Catholics and Protestants on this matter?

Lord John Hope: I do not think it unreasonable on an occasion like this to ask those who come from outside to wait while a service is in progress. Certainly on this occasion, as previously, there have been no complaints from people who wanted to come in. This lady's complaint is the first we have received.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Forest Fire

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the material direct and indirect loss to trade, industry and employment

in the north of Scotland caused by the forest fire there in June, 1960; and which trades and industries were affected.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): Although much valuable timber was destroyed in the recent forest fire, which affected estates at Glenmore, Rothiemurchus and Pityoulish, it is likely that the net loss, direct or indirect, to trade or industry in the north of Scotland will be slight. I understand that no unemployment has been caused by the fire.

Mr. Hughes: Is not the long duration of this great fire, its extent and the great consequent loss a measure of the failure of the Secretary of State's Department to deal with a disaster of this kind? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that disasters of this kind have occurred before and this should have been foreseen and provided against? Will he take steps to see that that is done in future?

Mr. Macpherson: If the hon. and learned Member has ever seen a forest fire he will know how very difficult it is to deal with. The Forestry Commission has developed comprehensive fire fighting arrangements in co-operation with the local authority fire services. I am assured that in the fire, which started on 3rd June and was not put out until 11th June, most admirable work was done by the fire brigade, and I should like to congratulate all those who took part in dealing with the emergency.

Slum Clearance

Mr. Willis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what new proposals he has for assisting local authorities in Scotland to speed up their slum clearance programmes.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): A guide to the various statutory procedures for slum clearance has been prepared for the assistance of local authorities and will be issued shortly. Without infringing the various rights of objection and appeal that have been established by Parliament, it is difficult to see how the procedures themselves can be expedited, but this is being studied.

Mr. Willis: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that we want something more than guides and that what local authorities


really need is more financial provision, particularly in view of the increasing interest rates, especially during the last few days?

Mr. Galbraith: I think that the recent circular should assist local authorities in speeding up slum clearance.

Moray House Demonstration School

Mr. Willis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now make a statement concerning the future of Moray House Demonstration School.

Mr. N. Macpherson: As my right hon. Friend has informed the hon. Member, he has been advised that under the present regulations governors of colleges have no power to close a main department of an attached demonstration school. Pupils will therefore be admitted to the secondary department of Moray House School next session. To make more room in the college itself, the governors are considering with Edinburgh Education Authority moving the secondary department temporarily to accommodation nearby.
Meantime my right hon. Friend is proposing to include a provision in amending regulations he will shortly be laying before Parliament to allow cases of this kind to be examined on their merits. The future of the school will be considered when the regulations have been made.

Mr. Willis: While we are grateful that the secondary department is to continue as it was during the 1960–61 session, may I ask the hon. Member whether he is aware that there is still a very big question mark over the future of this department? Is it the Secretary of State's intention, having obtained the powers which he is to seek, to close it?

Mr. Macpherson: It would be for the governors, in the first place, to consider whether or not to close it. My right hon. Friend's intention is to give himself a power to be consulted and, indeed, to approve or disapprove the governors' recommendations.

Mr. Hoy: Is not the Joint Under-Secretary of State aware that, following correspondence between my hon. Friend, the Department and myself, the Minister's reply contains a threat to do something

to this school which we find unacceptable? Would it not be very much better for the Scottish Office to take action to consider the whole future of the school and do the thing cleanly rather than to institute amending legislation to carryout what they have found that they have been unable to do?

Mr. Macpherson: I do not think that there is a threat at all. There is an immediate problem of pressure of accommodation with which these arrangements are designed to deal. The essence of the matter remains entirely open and is by no means prejudiced by the action being taken.

School Pupils (Security Checks)

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent it is the practice in Scottish schools to enlist the help of headmasters in security checks against pupils past or present.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Headmasters are frequently consulted by prospective employers about the suitability of individual pupils and former pupils for particular posts of many kinds, including posts entailing security risks.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the hon. Member be a bit more specific? Is he aware that this Question arises out of the extremely disturbing answers which were given on a similar issue in England by the Minister of Education just before Whitsun? Is he aware that on that occasion we were given to understand that the police, M.I.5 were asking headmasters, or their equivalent, of senior secondary schools in England about the political activities of senior pupils? Will the hon. Member give us an assurance that that is not the practice in Scotland?

Mr. Macpherson: To the best of my knowledge, no questions are asked about the political views of pupils or former pupils. This is a check on the reliability of candidates in a most important field, just as any other prospective employer would carry out a check.

University Students (Grants)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will amend the regulations on grants to university students so as to eliminate a means test on the income of the parents.

Mr. N. Macpherson: This is one of the matters dealt with in the Report of the Anderson Committee on Grants to Students. The Government's decisions on the Report will be announced as soon as possible.

Mr. Rankin: Is the hon. Member aware that the ideal of a free education from the primary standard right to the university has long been a cherished ideal in Scottish education? Now that it has the approval of the Anderson Committee, may we be assured that the Secretary of State will lend it his support, particularly at a time when we need university graduates more than ever?

Mr. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend is considering this from all angles, but he will most certainly take into account what the hon. Member has said.

Glasgow-Edinburgh Road (Accidents)

Miss Herbison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pedestrians have been killed on the Glasgow to Edinburgh Road between Salsburgh and Harthill; and how many of these were under 15 years of age.

Mr. N. Macpherson: During the period between 1st January, 1957, and 31st May, 1960, three adult pedestrians were killed in road accidents between Salsburgh and Harthill. During the same period one child was killed in Salsburgh and one in Harthill.

Miss Herbison: The Minister, of course, is aware that if he had taken them from the time that this road was built, which is not so very long ago, he would have found the figures very much worse than those which he has given. In any event, does he not realise that the death of these young children brings very great sorrow to many homes and real fears for the parents of young children?

Mr. Macpherson: Yes. My right hon. Friend is very well aware of that and, in particular, he conveyed to the hon. Lady his sympathy in the case of the child who was recently killed.

Harthill By-pass

Miss Herbison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when work will commence on the by-pass road at Harthill, Lanarkshire.

Mr. N. Macpherson: I have nothing to add to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Lady on 1st March last.

Miss Herbison: Surely the Minister is aware that this stretch of the Edinburgh-Glasgow road is much more dangerous than any other part of it. Does he realise that the answer which he gave, that the Baillieston-Newhouse part would be the first to be done, has caused great concern to my constituents? Is he also aware that the part which has been chosen to be done first has been chosen because it will cost less money than the part to which I have referred, where the work is needed so badly?

Mr. Macpherson: I do not accept what the hon. Lady said. The seven-mile stretch from Baillieston to New-house is a particularly dangerous part, because there are four important main junctions on it, whereas the road between Salsburgh and Harthill is an open stretch of road.

Miss Herbison: The Minister, who was ready to give that answer to my supplementary question, ought to have looked at the number of deaths which have been caused there. If he does, he will find that the road from Salsburgh to Harthill is much more dangerous than that on which the work is to be started first.

Mr. Macpherson: I cannot accept that either. The number of deaths and of accidents in general is looked at on the three-year basis to which I have referred. I will go into the figures again and write to the hon. Lady, but I do not think we shall find that the record of this stretch is worse than the record of the stretch which I have mentioned

Research and Advanced Course Studentships

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) why the preparation of Scottish research students in science and technology in Scotland is only 8 per cent. of the Great Britain figure; and whether he is prepared to examine the whole scheme of education in science in Scotland with a view to expanding Scottish interest;
(2) why there were only 14 applications for advanced course studentships in Scotland in 1958–59 and only four out


of 11 taken up, out of a United Kingdom total of 402 awards with 184 taken up, and a somewhat similar disparity in 1959–60; and what proposals he has to overcome this disinterestedness among Scottish students.

Mr. N. Macpherson: I am informed that the figure of 8 per cent. applies only to research studentships granted by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and that there are also Scottish research students in Scotland who receive assistance from other sources. The number of awards of research studentships depends upon the number of proposals for researches submitted. Awards of advanced course studentships can only be made where advanced courses are available at universities and other advanced institutions. My right hon. Friend welcomes the fact that the number of such courses in Scotland is increasing and will give every encouragement to them within his sphere of responsibilities.

Mr. Woodburn: Will the Secretary of State look into the question of why so few Scottish students apply for these special facilities? Will he also consider whether there should not be an inquiry into the provision of these facilities at Scottish universities? Is it not undesirable that all these things should be channelled down to Oxford, Cambridge and one or two other universities in England? Would it not be much better to build up the possibility of taking these advanced courses elsewhere?

Mr. Macpherson: We should distinguish straight away between advanced courses and actual projects of research. I dealt with both in my Answer. Projects of research depend upon proposals which are submitted, and these are not matters entirely in my right hon. Friend's hands. We will certainly give it further consideration.

Lobster and Crab Fishermen (Gear Losses)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any figures relating to the amount of gear lost by lobster and crab fishermen round the coast; and if he will consider some form of compensation or insurance scheme.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gilmour Leburn): I regret that no figures are available for such losses. While my right hon. Friend sympathises with fishermen who lose gear, this is a commercial hazard inseparable from fishing, and he does not think assistance from public funds would be justified.

Mr. Grimond: Is it not the case that the loss of gear at present prices is a very serious matter to fishermen and sometimes represents a very heavy loss? While I appreciate the difficulty of establishing an insurance scheme, will not the Government consider giving assistance to fishermen to run some sort of co-operative insurance scheme of their own?

Mr. Leburn: I should welcome any move towards a scheme of mutual insurance, but I am afraid that this is a matter for the fishermen themselves and could not be run by the Government.

Strome Ferry

Mr. John MacLeod: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that recently members of the public had to wait in a queue of 42 cars for three hours before getting across Strome Ferry; and what action he proposes to take to provide a by-pass road.

Mr. N. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend is aware that from time to time there are delays at Strome Ferry, but I am unable to say When a by-pass, which would cost over half a million pounds, can be fitted into the road programme.

Mr. MacLeod: Is the Joint Under-Secretary aware that this is an absolute scandal? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is totally against the Government's policy of developing tourism in the Highlands, and all authoritive bodies in Scotland believe that this road should by-pass Strome Ferry as soon as possible.

Mr. Macpherson: As my hon. Friend knows—and he has been to see my right hon. Friend about this—there has been a considerable improvement in that a six-car ferry was introduced last year. We have not had a whole year to see how that will work, but towards the end of the tourist season my right hon. Friend will be glad to discuss the matter with my hon. Friend.

Mr. MacLeod: This is when the six-car ferry is in operation, and it is only the beginning of the season.

Mr. Macpherson: It would be quite wrong to give the impression that the degree of waiting to which my hon. Friend has referred is anything like a regular occurrence; it certainly is not. While there are delays, it is only at the peak periods that there are delays of an hour or more.

Dingwall Burgh Council (Resolution)

Mr. John MacLeod: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the resolution sent to him by Dingwall Burgh Council in support of the representations by the county council and other local authorities in favour of the abolition of the system of State management of sole control of the liquor trade and the power of the Secretary of State to overthrow the decision of the local licensing court; and what reply he has sent to them.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Yes, Sir. The council has been informed that my right hon. Friend has noted the terms of their motion.

Mr. MacLeod: Will my hon. Friend take action and not only notice? This is another scandal in the area.[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Why is my hon. Friend afraid of competition? Surely it is obvious that more licensed premises are required in the area and that private enterprise will not provide them unless it can get licences.

Mr. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend told my hon. Friend in an Adjournment debate that he was considering the implications of what he said in that debate.

Improvement Grants

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what improvement grants, other than for land drainage, from water supplies, livestock rearing land schemes, silos, farm improvement schemes, and small farmers schemes, are available to Scottish farmers; and what steps he intends to take to ensure that all farmers are aware of the availability of all such grants.

Mr. Leburn: Improvement grants are also given under the Horticulture Improvements Scheme and the Crofters

Agricultural Grants Scheme. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that existing methods of publicity by Press, radio and leaflet are adequate.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I am very much concerned to ensure that the farmer knows what he is entitled to? In view of the vast number of subsidies, it is very difficult for him to know which to apply for and when to apply for them. Would it not be much simpler to advise him what he cannot apply for?

Mr. Leburn: We all know that the hon. Gentleman is inimical to some of these grants given to agriculture, but that does not deter the Government from pursuing a policy which is doing a great deal to build up the assets of the nation and which is highly beneficial to British farming.

Loch Ness

Captain Pilkington: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent reports he has had of fish being attacked in Loch Ness; and what was the source of the attacks.

Mr. Leburn: My right hon. Friend has received no such reports.

Captain Pilkington: Has my hon. Friend heard any reference to a monster in this loch? If so, will he take steps to see that its identity is not established, because when we have a first-class mystery it is just as well to keep it?

Mr. Leburn: Yes, Sir.

Road Schemes, Lanarkshire

Mr. T. Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will increase the allocation of grant to Lanark County Council for schemes costing less than £100,000 on classified roads for the year 1960–61.

Mr. N. Macpherson: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, my right hon. Friend has recently told the county council that he is not in a position at present to determine whether any increase in the amount of grant tentatively allocated for Lanarkshire will be possible.

Mr. Fraser: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some four years ago Lanark County Council had £123,000 allocated


for schemes of less than £100,000 and that in the current financial year, if one leaves out of account the four bridges necessary to be reconstructed as a result of railway electrification, Lanark County Council—the largest county council in Scotland, with a population of 500,000—is left with the grand sum of £2,000? Does not the Joint Under-Secretary think it is a scandalous amount of money to be available for road schemes which will each cost under £100,000?

Mr. Macpherson: The hon. Gentleman has left out of account altogether the schemes for East Kilbride which fall to be considered in line with the amount which is available to Lanarkshire in regard to the total amount to be spent in Scotland on schemes of this description. At that time there was an abnormal amount available for schemes costing less than £100,000 in Scotland, and, indeed, it has been necessary to divert a little more of the total sum available to trunk road schemes. The net amount of £2,000 is after budgeting for the amount in East Kilbride, as well as for the four bridges to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. Fraser: Is the hon. Gentleman also aware that the £123,000 allocated in 1956–57 was the sum left over after the amount for the East Kilbride development was taken into account? Why should the County of Lanarkshire be restricted in the amount of road work it can do because any Secretary of State has decided to go ahead with the new town of East Kilbride, which is in one corner of Lanarkshire, whereas these other four bridges are all in the part of Lanarkshire which abuts on the City of Glasgow where rail electrification is taking place? There is a population of 500,000 in that part of Lanarkshire in respect of which the sum of £2,000 is available for road schemes under £100,000.

Mr. Macpherson: The fact remains that, while the population of Lanarkshire is about one-tenth of the population of Scotland, the amount under this heading available to Lanarkshire is just under one-tenth of the total amount available.

Mr. Ross: The whole total is ridiculous.

Land Registration (Committee)

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the names of the interested organisations which have been invited to submit evidence to the Reid Committee on Registration of Title to Land in Scotland.

Mr. N. Macpherson: I understand that the Committee has invited evidence from local authority associations, the universities, legal societies, and a number of other bodies, in addition to publishing a general invitation in the Press.

Mr. Hannan: Is the Minister aware of the widespread concern that this Committee is loaded in favour of the legal profession and against the consumer? Is he further aware that many people, including some members of the profession itself, believe that the system of conveyancing in Scotland is archaic, slow and expensive and that the profession itself has a vested interest in maintaining that? Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that consumer interests by way of house purchasers will be given an opportunity of tendering evidence?

Mr. Macpherson: The Reid Committee is examining a highly technical problem, and I think that we can well leave to Lord Reid and his colleagues the duty of dealing with the remit which they have been given. I am quite certain that they will deal with it fairly in regard both to those in favour of registration and those who are against it.

Fire Service Appliances

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the reasons for the reduction in the replacement rate of appliances in the fire service; and what steps he proposes to take to restore the supply of new appliances to its former rate or to increase it.

Mr. N. Macpherson: The replacement of fire appliances is a matter for the fire authorities who have a statutory obligation to maintain an efficient fire service. My right hon. Friend has no reason to suppose that they are not doing so.

Mr. Hannan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in his own fire inspector's report for Scotland special mention is made of the fact that these appliances


are in shorter supply than previously, and in view of the recent incidents in Glasgow, Liverpool and elsewhere, is it not right that men called upon to save lives should be supplied with the most modern and up-to-date appliances possible?

Mr. Macpherson: The inspector said that the amount of replacements of major fire appliances last year was less than in previous years, and that is so. Taken over a period of three years, however, it was greater than in the previous two three-year periods, and the number of other appliances bought in 1959 was greater than in 1956 or 1957.

Trunk Roads

Mr. T. Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the inadequacy of many trunk roads for the traffic: they have to carry; and why he has proposed to limit projects of new construction and major improvement on trunk roads in the current year to a cost even less than the actual expenditure incurred last year.

Mr. N. Macpherson: This year trunk road schemes amounting to £4½million will be authorised; the comparable figure for last year was £2,347,000. This year it is estimated that payments in respect of work done—mostly on schemes already authorised—will be £3,401,000; actual expenditure last year was £3295,360.

Mr. Fraser: Did not the Joint Under-Secretary say in answer to Question No. 24 that the Government had to take into account, in deciding the amount of money to be made available for classified roads, the amount of money made available for trunk roads? Is he aware that the figures which he gave just now are not quite the same as those shown in the Estimates, which were that Scotland last year had an actual expenditure on the trunk roads of £3,407,000. The Estimate for the coming year is £3,401,000, which shows a reduction of £6,000. Meanwhile, in England there has been an increase from £37,650,000 to £50,660,000. I do not think that England is getting too much for trunk roads, but why should there be an increase of £13 million for expenditure on trunk roads in England with no increase at all in Scotland?

Mr. Macpherson: The figure the hon. Gentleman quoted was the estimated

figure of £3,407,000. I gave the actual expenditure for last year. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the road programme hae been calculated over a period of four years.

Youth Service (Report)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Kilbrandon Committee on Youth Service in Scotland will issue an interim report.

Mr. N. Macpherson: No, Sir. The Standing Consultative Council on Youth Service in Scotland has not been asked to prepare any report. The Council is not a committee of inquiry but a standing body whose functions are to secure the fullest consultation and co-ordination among the statutory authorities and voluntary organisations engaged in youth service, and to promote the development of the service. The results of the Council's work in any particular year will, of course, be reported in the Scottish Education Department's Annual Report.

Mr. Rankin: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that in Circular No. 436 the Secretary of State says that he will await the conclusion of the labours of this body in order to obtain its advice before he takes any further steps? Something requires to be done immediately about this most important service. Does the Secretary of State intend to adhere to the terms of Circular No. 436 and not listen to my suggestion that we should have some interim conclusion so as to guide local authorities, and so on, in the meantime?

Mr. Macpherson: The Kilbrandon Committee is giving continuous advice. It is continually considering various aspects of the youth service, and it has already made a recommendation, which has been accepted, that a one-year training course for full-time youth leaders and organisers should be instituted. We hope that it will be instituted in the autumn. The Committee is also considering the bang-term training of youth leaders. Its main function, as is stated in the circular to which the hon. Gentleman refers, is to consider methods by which
To secure the greatest possible measure of consultation and co-ordination both nationally and locally among the statutory authorities and voluntary organizations …

Housing

Mr. Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what he estimates will be the effect on Scottish local authority house building of the latest increase in interest rates.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): Decisions on the scale of housing programmes depend on many factors and I do not believe that the measures recently announced will deter local authorities from continuing to provide houses for priority needs on at least the present scale.

Mr. Ross: One wonders how incredulous the Secretary of State is. Is he aware that there is already concern in Scotland about the serious decline in local authority building?

Mr. Ellis Smith: And in England.

Mr. Ross: It is frankly admitted that the inevitable result of this financial squeeze will be further to reduce the number of local authority houses built. Indeed, from the statements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that is the intention of the Government.

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member is expressing an opinion of his own. His Question asked me to express my opinion, and I have expressed it. I add that it is not yet clear what effect the measures will have on the market rate for local authority borrowing. This is a very important Question, and I repeat what I have said before. If local authorities charge reasonable rents for existing houses and make a fair contribution from the rates, with their existing pool of Exchequer subsidies they should have a substantial margin to enable them to finance their present building programmes, even if they have to borrow at slightly higher interest rates than at present.

Mr. Rankin: Is the right hon. Gentleman telling us that freezing Government fixed expenditure for 1961–62 at the present level, raising the Bank Rate and reducing liquidity in the Scottish banks will have no effect on housing?

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member touched on a matter at the beginning of his supplementary question which is dealt with in a later Question, and I

prefer to wait until then before answering. I have expressed my view which was asked for on the Question I am answering.

Mr. Ross: Is the Secretary of State aware that the one local authority in Scotland which took his advice in relation to the raising of rents was Dumfries County Council, and it gained absolutely nothing thereby? The right hon. Gentleman said that it is too early to say exactly what the result of this will be. Does that mean that if it does not cause a sufficiently speedy decline in the number of houses being built the Chancellor of the Exchequer will still further increase the Bank Rate?

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Gentleman must not make assumptions and deal with hypothetical situations.

Mr. Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the considerations that prompted the issue of the circular changing the conditions under which housing subsidies are to be paid.

Mr. Galbraith: The circular itself made clear my right hon. Friend's approach, but there will no doubt be an opportunity for further explanations in the course of Thursday's debate in the Scottish Grand Committee.

Mr. Ross: Is not this interfering with the rights of local authorities? As the right hon. Gentleman has been proclaiming that we must trust local authorities, is it fair—indeed, is it not even sharp practice—for the Secretary of State for Scotland, without reference to Parliament, to change the conditions for the granting of subsidies in Scotland?

Mr. Galbraith: No, this is not sharp practice, nor is it interfering with the rights of local authorities. The hon. Gentleman ought to know perfectly well that under the 1957 Act my right hon. Friend has a duty to be satisfied of the extent and trend of these needs.

Mr. McInnes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will indicate the extent of the waiting list for houses in Glasgow; and how many houses that authority expects to complete this year.

Mr. Galbraith: There are about 130,000 names on Glasgow's waiting list. I understand that the corporation expects


to complete some 3,000 houses this year and that against an estimate for the next five years of a requirement of about 10,400 houses for priority applicants and 20,000 for families displaced by redevelopment there will be available 12,800 new houses plus 10,000 from overspill and 10,000 from relets.

Mr. McInnes: The Minister is aware that Glasgow's annual output of houses has fallen in the last few years from 6,000 to less than 3,000, due to the fact that there are no more sites in the city on which to build. Apart from exporting six or seven hundred families to reception areas in new towns, can the hon. Gentleman give us any indication of the Government's intention to solve this problem within the next forty years?

Mr. Galbraith: Yes, certainly—to continue with exporting population to new towns and to continue our overspill arrangements. The hon. Gentleman is expecting results too soon.

Mr. Rankin: We have been waiting half a lifetime.

Mr. Galbraith: The city may have been waiting half a lifetime, but we have at the moment three new towns in operation, none of which is yet finished. I think it is far better to continue with this rather than, as the hon. Gentleman has suggested many times, to start a fourth town at this moment.

Traffic Survey, Edinburgh

Mr. Stodart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the cost of surveying the origin and destination of traffic approaching the city of Edinburgh will be borne by his Department.

Mr. N. Macpherson: The survey will attract grant of 50 per cent., but for the part of it which is of direct use for trunk road plans the grant will be 100 per cent.

Mr. Stodart: Is my hon. Friend aware that the survey is being made primarily in connection with the proposed by-pass round the city of Edinburgh? In view of the long-term importance of the project, is the grant being paid at the maximum rate?

Mr. Macpherson: The grant is the normal amount paid. The survey will be of great value in the future planning of the City's internal road system, and it is primarily directed to ascertain what is known as the by-passable traffic.

Maternity Beds, Glasgow

Mr. McInnes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the urgent need for additional maternity beds in Glasgow in advance of the projects now under construction; and what action he will take to meet this need.

Mr. Galbraith: These projects will provide 90 additional beds within a year, and a total addition of 200 by the end of 1964. New admission arrangements are being made so that existing hospitals will admit cases where the social need is greatest as well as all cases of medical need. The temporary diversion of beds from other uses is being considered by the regional board.

Mr. McInnes: The Minister is aware and does not deny that there is an acute shortage of maternity beds in Glasgow. Is he prepared, in conjunction with the Western Regional Hospital Board, to meet the Glasgow Corporation with his own Department to discuss this matter?

Mr. Galbraith: My noble Friend the Minister of State is arranging to do just that.

Overgate Redevelopment, Dundee

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland on what date the local inquiry into the Overgate redevelopment in Dundee was completed; when he expects to receive the report; and what fee is payable to the commissioner.

Mr. Galbraith: The inquiry ended on 11th February. I understand that the final comments of the parties on the factual part of the report have only just been submitted. My right hon. Friend expects to receive the report within the next few days, when the amount of the fee will be determined.

Mr. Thomson: Will the Minister make sure that the commissioner is not paid too highly by going very slowly on this matter? Is he aware that this is a matter


of great importance and urgency for Dundee and, when he gets the report, will he take a quick decision on it?

Mr. Galbraith: I can give that undertaking.

Dundee Hospital

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects building operations to begin on the new Dundee hospital.

Mr. Galbraith: The present forecast is that building operations will begin in February, 1963.

Mr. Thomson: Is the Joint Under-Secretary aware that it is exactly a year ago since I asked a similar Question and that there was then a sense of shock when he announced that the starting date had been put back to late 1961? Is he aware that his information that the work is now being pushed back for two years to 1963 will make people in Scotland feel that it is disgracefully slow and is becoming a national scandal?

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman must realise this is the first complete new teaching hospital to be built in Scotland. There is no up-to-date experience in the United Kingdom of the building of a new teaching hospital, and we want to make sure that, when we build, we build in the right way.

Ware Potatoes

Mr. Stodart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the average price realised for ware potatoes, grown in Scotland, which have been marketed between 27th September, 1959, and the present date.

Mr. Leburn: The average price for ware potatoes sold in Scotland for human consumption between 27th September, 1959, and 30th April, 1960, is provisionally estimated at £10 8s. 6d. per ton. The average as at the present date cannot yet be calculated.

Mr. Stodart: Is my hon. Friend aware that two rather disturbing features arise here? First, although the price he has quoted is nearly £3 below the support price, no deficiency payment will be available, and, secondly, the flood of imported early potatoes is doing nothing to make an already disturbing situation any easier?

Mr. Leburn: My hon. Friend will bear in mind that the potato guarantee is a collective guarantee designed to ensure a reasonable return to the industry as a whole. In considering the position of Scottish potato growers, it must be remembered that half of the Scottish potato acreage is grown for the higher-priced seed market.

Public Expenditure

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if reductions are proposed to be made in construction of roads, piers, &c., and other public expenditure in Scotland as a result of the recent Government announcement.

Mr. Maclay: There are no proposals for cuts in roads and piers. As regards public expenditure generally, discussions are proceeding on the way in which to implement the decision announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 23rd June to hold the public sector investment programme for 1961–62 at the level of the current programme for the present financial year.

Mr. Grimond: Is the Secretary of State aware that in many public services Scotland is already behind and that any cut in or slowing down of the programme will have very serious effects, particularly in those places where, as I have said, the general social amenities already lag very much behind the rest of the country?

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the very considerable advance we have been making in recent years over the whole area of Scotland, and particularly in the far North, in relation to roads and piers. I should add that the special circumstances of Scotland will certainly be borne in mind in the discussions that are proceeding.

Mr. T. Fraser: Is the Secretary of State aware that less work is being done on road construction in Scotland than in any country in Western Europe, including the Republic of Ireland; and that none of those countries has anything like the need for roads that Scotland has? Is it not about time that he was really getting down to starting—not just telling us about what he will do in the future, but starting a real programme of road works in Scotland?

Mr. Maclay: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the work done in recent years he will see that it is rising steadily in every year, and I must remind him that there are such things as relevant priorities, a matter that was worrying his Government so much when last in office that they did virtually no work whatsoever on roads in Scotland.

Mr. Manuel: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Owing to the most unsatisfactory nature of the reply given by the right hon. Gentleman to the Question asked by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), I give notice that I will raise the matter, especially in connection with the road programme in Scotland, on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Export Trade (Aberdeen)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress he has made in conjunction with the special committee set up under the chairmanship of the Lord Provost of Aberdeen to promote export trade from Aberdeen to the Scandinavian and near European countries.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): When the committee has started work I shall be glad to consider how the Board of Trade can help it in the promotion of export trade or in any other ways.

Mr. Hughes: Does not the Minister of State realise that he is a bit late in saying this that this authoritative and representative committee is making a valuable attempt to make good the wanton breaches of promise by this Government and the previous Government with regard to attracting trade to Aberdeen? What is the present position? Does he know that this is a very urgent matter?

Mr. Erroll: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is a little late in putting down his Question.

Polish Bacon and Butter

Mr. Willey: asked the President of the Board of Trade how the import quotas for bacon and butter from Poland for 1960 compare with those for 1959.

Mr. Erroll: The quotas for the twelve months beginning on 1st July, 1960, are the same as those for the calendar year 1959. Interim quotas of 20,000 tons for bacon and 10,000 tons for butter were established for the first six months of 1960.

Mr. Willey: Will the right hon. Gentleman call the attention of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture to this reply and ask his right hon. Friend to correct the statements he has previously made about this?

Mr. Erroll: I shall certainly look at what my right hon. Friend said, but I shall be very surprised if any correction is needed.

EUROPEAN FREE TRADE

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Prime Minister whether, in advance of receiving proposals for closer association wish the European Economic Community, he will himself formulate plans for the method and timing of Great Britain's entry into the Common Market, and lay them first before the Prime Ministers of the Outer Seven and then before those of the European Economic Community.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) on 21st June. Negotiations are going on in the Committee on Trade Problems in Paris, and I think that it would be better to wait and see what comes out of them.

Mr. Wyatt: Does not the Prime Minister realise that the growing strength of the Common Market represents an urgent threat to British industry? If he will not take that from me, will he read the Motion on the Order Paper signed by a number of his hon. Friends in revolt against his slowness? Would it not be better for him to address himself to this problem than to waste time trying to promote summit conferences that do not take place?
[That this House, recalling the concern expressed by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference at the prospects of any economic division in Europe and its possible political implications, and noting the President of the French Republic's


recent definition of the road to be followed in the building of Western Europe as that of organised co-operation of States, pending the advent, perhaps, of an imposing confederation, urges Her Majesty's Government, without further delay, to consult our partners in the European Free Trade Association and in the Commonwealth, and to put forward firm proposals for subsequent negotiations with the Six.]

The Prime Minister: In this matter I shall, of course, do anything I can which seems at the right moment best calculated to lead towards the achievement of our aims, and, I think, the aims of the whole House, of a partnership between the two groupings in a common system of European trade consistent with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there will be many people who will entirely agree with him if he shows reluctance for this country to do all the giving and get no benefit in return?

The Prime Minister: There are two main points we have to keep in mind. We are entering these negotiations with our partners. We do not intend in any way to abandon the partnership into which we have entered, that is, the E.F.T.A. We shall do all we can to reach an agreement, for the purposes I have stated, with our friends in the Six.

Mr. Grimond: Can the Prime Minister tell us whether, if suitable terms can be arranged with the Commonwealth and arrangements made with our partners in the Seven, the Government have made up their mind whether they want to go into the Common Market or not?

The Prime Minister: What we want is an arrangement and a partnership between the two groupings for a common system of European trade, and that does imply, first, loyalty to our friends in the E.F.T.A., and then every possible effort to reach agreement upon how the Six and the Seven can be brought into a common European trade system.

DISARMAMENT

Mrs. Butler: asked the Prime Minister if he will set up an arms control research institute under his personal

direction to investigate the problems involved in a workable disarmament programme.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. This work must be done multilaterally to be of value.

Mrs. Butler: Is it not a stumbling-block for peace that the arms race continues partly because we have never faced up to the economic and social problems involved in disarmament? Since Senator Kennedy says that he is in favour of such a body in the United States, is it not desirable that on this side of the Atlantic we should use some of our best brains in this constructive way, particularly as, at this moment, we are saddened and dispirited by the breakdown of the Disarmament Conference? It would be something effective that we ourselves could do.

The Prime Minister: Of course, all these studies are carried out ourselves by our own Departments and experts, but what we have to try to do is to reach an agreement with the Soviet Government and other Governments. I very much deplore what has happened, and I think that it is a very great setback.
I do not understand the position that the Soviet Government have taken up. It was only on 7th June that the Russian Government put forward a new plan which they rightly said took into account the last Western plan. Last Sunday, they were informed unofficially that the Western Powers intended on the following day to table a new plan taking account of the Russians' last plan. [Interruption.] The Russians set up two plans. They started with one, and we started with one. They set up another taking in some of the things we put forward, and we were about to table our reply having in mind what they had said. I think it is a very lamentable thing, and I shall do my best to see, by some means or other, that these negotiations should continue.

Mr. Healey: Can the Prime Minister tell us whether, in fact, the five Western Powers had agreed on the details of their reply to the Soviet Union, and, if so, will they publish their reply as soon as possible?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The five Western Powers agreed, and on the


Sunday night they informed Mr. Zorin unofficially of the plan that they would table on the Monday, and this is about to be published.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: In order that hon. Members may understand what has happened at Geneva, will the Prime Minister arrange that the minutes of the Committee of Ten Nations are published as a White Paper so that we may know where responsibility lies?

The Prime Minister: I understand that there is a Question to the Foreign Secretary tomorrow on that matter. I shall certainly call his attention to what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and, if it is for the convenience of the House, it may, perhaps, be useful to publish all the various stages of what will now be the four plans of different kinds which have been put forward, together with an account of the proceedings.

Mr. Gaitskell: While regretting the decision of the Russian Government to withdraw from the conference, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he will make every possible effort, perhaps through normal diplomatic channels, to try to get the conference going again?

The Prime Minister: I have received a letter from the Prime Minister of the Soviet Government to which I am just engaged in preparing a reply. I was not informed that he intended to publish his letter to me. I understand that it has been published and, in that case, I shall publish the reply, which I hope to send off today or tomorrow.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. C. Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the strength of Welsh opinion about the appointment of Mrs. Jones to be Chairman of the Welsh Council of the British Broadcasting Corporation, has the Prime Minister approached you to ask if he may make a statement in reply to Question No. 44?

Mr. Speaker: I regret that not even the strength of Welsh opinion makes that a matter for me.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I direct your attention to the fact that the Welsh Broadcasting Council, appointed by the

Government, with one dissentient voice only, voted to appeal to the Prime Minister to reconsider his decision? In view of the fact that his reply is awaited, could you not ask the Prime Minister to reply to this Question today?

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that what the right hon. Gentleman has said has been heard, but it really is not a matter for me.

Mr. G. Thomas: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the position of the British Broadcasting Corporation's Welsh Council becomes worse with every passing day—[An HON. MEMBER: "Say it in Welsh."] Esgusodwch fi, os gwelwch yn dda—

Mr. Speaker: I hope that the hon. Member will be quite sure that he is not making a speech under the cloak of a point of order. I will hear him on the point of order. I have no right to hear him on another topic.

Mr. Thomas: I was distracted for a moment, Mr. Speaker.
In view of the fact that the position of the Welsh Council is put in increasing difficulty by the delay, would it not be possible for the Prime Minister to help clear the position by making a statement now, with your permission?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Shinwell: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. Apart from the merits of the actual point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes), may I call your attention to another aspect of the matter? You are aware that, some time ago, the allocation of the stage when the Prime Minister should answer Question was revised. I think that it was the Leader of the House, if not the Prime Minister himself, who said that the present arrangement should be tried. It has been tried for several weeks.
The result has been that it is very rarely, even if the Prime Minister reaches his Questions, that he is able to go through them all. If he had been able to do so today, the Question about which my hon. and right hon. Friends have asked would have been answered. Whether it would have been answered satisfactorily or not is beside the point


at the moment. Would you consider, perhaps with the Leader of the House, whether it is possible to revise the allocation again and bring the Prime Minister's Question forward to, let us say, Question No. 35?

Mr. Speaker: My reply to the right hon. Gentleman gives me an opportunity to say—these things are rather tedious when they are said—that it is really very little use the House resolving that it will help me in the length and number of supplementary questions if the state of affairs is once again as it is now.
I will certainly take note of what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I am sure that the Leader of the House will do the same.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[The Prime Minister.]

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business). any Private Business set down for consideration at Seven o'clock this evening by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means may be taken after Nine o'clock.—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[17TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee,

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the chair]

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1960–61

VOTE 12. ADMIRALTY OFFICE

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £9,915,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the Admiralty Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1961.

S. G. BROWN LIMITED (SALE)

3.36 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Lee: On 25th June last year, the Committee debated the future ownership of the publicly-owned company S. G. Brown, Ltd. I recall that on that occasion I tried briefly to review the company's history from the time when it was a small struggling concern under private enterprise, through the period of public ownership, and so on. I do not intend to go through all that review again, but I think that I am entitled to say that, after I had reviewed that history, and asked why the company should not be retained in public ownership, no answer was given to that case at all.
Suffice it to say that, because the private owners of S. G. Brown were failing the nation in time of war, it was taken over by the Admiralty and did a very good job during the rest of the critical years of the war. At the end of the war, the Labour Government, then in power. were requested by the workers of S. G. Brown to retain the company in public ownership. My noble Friend Viscount Alexander of Hillsborough. who was then First Lord of the Admiralty, agreed and, as a result, a first-class organisation came into being in which management and workers combined most harmoniously to produce instruments such as the famous gyrocompass now used in our supersonic aircraft, submarines, and so forth. This Government, who confess that they are quite unable to produce such devices as


Blue Streak, are not interested in the production of scientific instruments of the kind to which I have referred.
There has never been any dispute, strike or anything of that kind in the company, and extremely useful profits have been made for the nation. I recall that, in collaboration with the Royal Aircraft Establishment, at Farnborough, the Brown master reference gyro was produced and earned a reputation for quality second to none in the world. All this, I remind the Committee, was done entirely on public money and at public initiative.
When we look back now—I suppose that these are almost the valedictory remarks about S. G. Brown—at the performance of the company, we can say that whether we judge it on solvency, quality of product and its team work, its value in the national interest, or in any other way, it passes every test that we may care to apply. Indeed, this was the meat of the debate which we had twelve months ago, and not a single point which I made then has since been denied. The whole case was, in fact, conceded by the Government.
We have since seen the application to this firm of the disgraceful formula laid down a year ago by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in answer to a Question which I asked. The right hon. Gentleman's Answer was:
… to justify a firm remaining in public ownership the onus of proof must be that it is required in the national interest and that the firm will prosper under public ownership but would not prosper under private enterprise."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 16th June, 1959; Vol. 607. c. 244.]
I recall pointing out at the time that the meaning of that was that we have to prove not only that public ownership has been a success, but that private enterprise would fail. At the time my right hon. and hon. Friends were shocked at that reply, but not only we on this side thought that that was bad enough. There has been adverse comment on this formula in many sections of the Press which are by no means associated with this party. Now that we know that when the right hon. Gentleman gave us that formula he meant that the firm would prosper under British public ownership, but would not prosper under foreign private enterprise, it becomes even worse than we thought at that time.
I ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, who is to make the case, if one exists, for the Government, what incentive there can possibly be for men and women employed in the nationalised industries, whether they be members of the management or on the factory floor, to seek either profits for the nation or to give their energy, skill and devotion to the nation if the price to be paid for it in the end is denationalisation? I should have thought that this policy was as irresponsible as ours would have been during 1945–50 if we had nationalised industries merely because they were making profits and refused to touch those which were not. If we had done that there would now be no railway system and no coal industry in Britain. Instead of it being the case, as we hear so often in the publicity of the party opposite, that publicly-owned industries fail to make profits because they are nationalised, the fact which is now emerging is that they remain nationalised only because they fail to make profits.
Let me now turn to the announcement which was made the other day. We should like to know from the Civil Lord why it was necessary to announce the sale of S. G. Brown on Monday, 13th June, during a Parliamentary Recess, when Parliament was due to return within seven days of that date. I think that we are entitled to believe that this was a deliberate attempt to prevent Parliament functioning at all, so that when we returned we would be faced with a fait accompli. I believe that such an action shows the complete contempt in which the Tories hold the Parliamentary institution unless it happens to serve their particular purpose. [Laughter.] Yes, this is not the first illustration by a long way.
We now know that S. G. Brown is to be sold to a combination of de Havilland Holdings and the American Bosch Arma Corporation on a 51–49 per cent. basis. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman how many bids were made for this firm by British concerns and why they were found unacceptable. The Civil Lord said during Question Time the other day:
… this was the best offer which we received."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd June, 1960; Vol. 625, c. 417.]


What does that mean? Does it mean that the eventual price which was accepted of £775,000 was the highest offer, or that other considerations, such as the licensing agreement which existed with the Bosch Arma Corporation from 1957, was taken into account as well? I became a little frightened when the hon. Gentleman said what a shame it would be to break up such licensing arrangements. But the Atomic Energy Authority has many licensing arrangements with private enterprise in other parts of the world than Britain. What is to happen here we must wait and see.
If this disgraceful arrangement represents the best offer, the others which were received must have been deplorable. It would appear that if this was the best offer which was received the others must have been based not on the value of the firm, but on the knowledge that the Government, for purely political reasons, were prepared to sell merely to get rid of the principle of public ownership in S. G. Brown. We know from that infallible source the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) that, even before the House debated this issue a year ago, 42 applications had been made for S. G. Brown.
In the debate of a year ago I asked the Civil Lord about the position of the Bosch Arma Corporation. I asked him whether the Bosch Arma Corporation was interested in the sale of S. G. Brown. I said:
Has the Bosch Arma Corporation any further interest in the affairs of S. G. Brown? It seems peculiar, with the tie-up of the full resources of the Arma division of the American Bosch Arma Corporation, that the corporation is now agreeable to this firm becoming the property of people who may well be competitors but who have done nothing in the development of this very successful enterprise.
In reply, the then Civil Lord, who is now a Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, said:
We are determined, too, that the purchaser should not be under foreign control"—
The Government have just managed that by 1·1 per cent., as far as I can make out—
and to ensure that the purchase is not financed in such a way that the firm might be brought under foreign control. Before agreeing to a sale, therefore, the Government will assure itself of these points. There is one other feature which we intend to safeguard. As the House knows … S. G. Brown has

acquired the right to manufacture under licence equipment developed by the Bosch Arma Corporation of America. This work holds considerable promise for the future, and therefore in assessing the desirability of any possible purchaser who might have some American connections the Admiralty would assure itself that this would not damage or prejudice the existing arrangement between S. G. Brown and the Bosch Arma Corporation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th June, 1959; Vol. 607, c. 1403–4 and 1421.]
The Government have assured themselves of that all right. Examining the matter now, and going through the whole detail of what happened, I am utterly convinced that even a year ago they had decided not only to sell S. G. Brown, but to sell it to the Bosch Arma Corporation before that debate took place. The conditions which were read out in that debate were enforced because we insisted on debating the issue in 1959.
We have heard the conditions, both in 1959 and, with some amendment, this time. What value should we ascribe to those conditions? The Civil Lord, during Question Time the other day, pointed out that no foreign concern can hold more than 49 per cent. of the shares without the permission of the Government. What sort of guarantee is that? The Government have no objection to their holding more than 49 per cent. As I have said, that was a condition which was forced on them in the 1959 debate. I should be very surprised if the Bosch Arma Corporation would be interested in S. G. Brown under permanent conditions which laid down that it should hold only 49 per cent, of the shares.
I should like to ask the Civil Lord to do two things. Will he give a solemn assurance that the Government will not agree, if they are approached by the Bosch Arma Corporation, to its having more than 49 per cent. of the shares? When he has told us that, perhaps he will also tell us how he can enforce it when there is a further sale or sales in the course of the next few years. In reply to a Question the other day, the hon. Gentleman changed the wording a little. "Conditions of sale" became "considerations of sale". There is a vast difference between hard-and-fast conditions of sale which are enforced, and considerations of sale which cannot be enforced. Again, I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he realised that he was saying this, whether he intended that there was a different emphasis as


between conditions "and "considerations", and, if so, whether he will today go back to the 1959 point and use the term "conditions of sale".
When we discussed the question of employment there in 1959, when we said that we wanted guarantees that the men and women employed by S. G. Brown would be as secure in their jobs when the change of ownership took place as they are now, and again the other day, the hon. Gentleman told us that existing levels of employment would be maintained, but that is no guarantee to the people in S. G. Brown now. Of course, there may be an existing level of employment which does not ensure the people now there their jobs at all. Therefore, I submit that the employees have lost the guarantee which we achieved in 1959, and I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would reiterate that the present employees of S. G. Brown will be maintained in their jobs when the firm changes ownership.
As to the selling price of £775,000, with the proviso, as I understand it, that the new owners will take over the overdraft, can the hon. Gentleman explain why it is such a small selling price? I believe that if we look at the balance sheet, we find that the net assets of S. G. Brown and its subsidiary are valued in the consolidated balance sheet at £1,172,760 at the year ended 31st March, 1959, which is the latest balance sheet that Somerset House has, and that this figure allows for setting the bank overdraft against the assets.
I should have thought that under these conditions this is a very inadequate price to accept for this organisation. I know that, if we take the trading profits after tax, we find that in 1956–57 they were £87,694 and, in 1957–58, £64,917. I understand that this year the profits are very low indeed, and that the profit on S. G. Brown is £9,143, while the subsidiary's losses were £4,447. Has this in any way affected the sale of this firm? We should like to know the details of that build-up. Indeed, we should like to know why this profit has fallen at all. I wonder whether we could suggest that it may be because it has been starved of capital in the knowledge that it was to be sold.
The Civil Lord told us last June that
a net total of £546,000 has been provided for the company from Navy Votes, with another £250,000 in hand for this year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th June, 1959; Vol. 607, c. 1416.]
Was that £250,000 ever paid over? My feeling on the matter is that it has never been paid, and that this is the reason for the overdraft going up to £440,000. Indeed, it is a most remarkable thing that while the Government are appealing to the bankers to keep down the overdrafts of their customers, the Government themselves are building up this overdraft in their own establishment.
The hon. Member for Kidderminster, who, I regret to say, is absent from his place, for a reason which I have not yet managed to learn, pledged the full support of the Tory Party for this sale when we discussed it the other day. That hon. Gentleman concluded his own speech in June of last year by telling us that the selling price should be between £1½millon and £2 million. Perhaps this explains his lamented absence from his usual place. I wonder if he is now not quite so enthusiastic about the sale of S. G. Brown as he was when he pledged the full support of the Tory Party for it the other day. The fact is that it is not being sold—

Mr. Godfrey Lagden: I should like to place on record that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has no more right to pledge the entire Conservative Party than the present Leader of the Opposition has to pledge his party.

Mr. Lee: I am sorry that, by inference, the hon. Gentleman is saying that the hon. Member for Kidderminster is already the 'leader of the Tory Party. That is something we were afraid of, but we did not know until today that it had actually happened.

Mr. Harold Wilson: It would be a great improvement.

Mr. Lee: It would be a great improvement, as my right hon. Friend says.
I am trying to find out what is the explanation of the low profit last year. My understanding is that the firm has been allowed to run down quite a bit during the last year or two. I wonder whether the Government found it convenient to allow that kind of thing to happen so that they can now report that they are selling a declining asset. Or is it the


other way round? Having allowed the firm to run down with rapidly falling profits as a consequence, I wonder whether they panicked and sold at roughly the amount of Government money that had been put into it. Bad as this position is, the actual position is even worse.
I recall that in the course of the speech that I made on the last occasion when we discussed S. G. Brown I quoted the Daily Telegraph, which was very rightly protesting about the large sums of public money being handed out to private firms. I recall this because it is rather remarkable now. This was the quotation that I used from the Daily Telegraph:
In the queue for State aid at the moment stand the following vast private undertakings: the entire cotton industry; Colville's steel works;"—
and we know what happened there—
the Cunard Line; the de Havilland Aircraft Company;",—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th June, 1959; Vol. 607, c. 1410.]
Is it not remarkable that since the last election the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Minister of Aviation has been busy shovelling out public money into the great aircraft corporations, including de Havillands? Now we have a firm which has been in receipt of large amounts of public money being allowed to use that money, or comparable money, to buy from the British public a British asset with the money which the British public have already provided to de Havillands. We now have these strange circumstances in which a firm which is receiving public money can use it to buy a public asset of this type. It would seem, if I am right about this, that all that the public get out of this is the amount to be paid by the Bosch Arma Corporation.
May I ask the Civil Lord a further question about de Havillands? Does it own any companies in the United States of America? Is the arrangement which we are now discussing the only tie-up that it has with the Bosch Arma Corporation, because if it is not, and if there are further tie-ups in the United States or anywhere else, the whole question of control at Watford is involved again?
I have said that we should like some explanation about the rate of profit, but I will tell the Civil Lord this. Nobody

in S. G. Brown's is surprised that the profit is so small. Everybody there knows that the amount of work going through the firm recently has been falling rapidly. Indeed, a number of highly skilled men have been leaving the firm. A number of them left because the earnings that they could get at S. G. Brown's were lower than they could get elsewhere in the same district.
That is a great advertisement for Government employment. The shop stewards attempted to negotiate better earnings for the men, but were refused on the ground that this would entail an alteration in the terms of the sale. Apparently, nothing must interfere with the terms of the sale, even if it means that men are being underpaid as against what they can get for comparable work elsewhere in the same district.
I understand that a long time ago, when we had a 7 per cent. Bank Rate, the firm decided that it could not afford to carry a great deal of stock. At that time, in one of the departments which is relevant to this argument, the night shift was stopped and all overtime work was discontinued. Instead of long runs—hon. Members who know the engineering industry will know what I mean, a large number of components upon which men can get up greater speed—the men had to work on short batches, which, again, cut back production. I understand that travellers sent out by the firm all over Europe for orders for the gyro were instructed not to take further orders. I should not have thought that the Government were too happy about our trading position in Europe, but when we reach a situation of that sort it is fantastic.
All this resulted in the number of master reference gyros that were going through the firm totalling 11 per month. I am a great believer in coincidence and that kind of thing, but how remarkable it is that last Monday the night shift started work again in the appropriate department and the objective is now 25 gyros per month. I suppose that we will hear in the future that this transfer to private ownership has resulted in an enormous increase in the productivity of the people at S. G. Brown's.

Mr. Farey-Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman make clear to the Committee that the reason for the point he


has made was that a scientific modification was made to the gyro as a result of technical information from across the water?

Mr. Lee: I said a year ago that the Mark It gyro was then being developed, but no case has been deployed in S. G. Brown's. that the travellers must not take orders because of any modification of the gyro. It was simply because the firm was starved of capital that it could not carry the stock necessary to take larger orders.
The Government, I take it, are worried about our trading position. They have reason to be, even if they are not, especially in view of the huge import bill for raw materials for our industries, about which we had a word or two yesterday. I thought that we were all agreed that the only method of obtaining a permanent solution of this problem is to concentrate our effort on the production of the types of goods which contain the largest element of highly skilled labour and the smallest proportion of raw materials. I cannot think of any product which fulfils that formula better than the scientific instruments produced by S. G. Brown, containing, as they do, the results of concentrated scientific research over many years and on which some of the most highly skilled personnel in Britain are employed.
I put it to the Government: how can we convince the world to buy from us while we advertise the belief of our own Government that we need American participation as a condition of our ability to succeed in production? I am not objecting to the principle of American or any other capital being put into British industry where British capital is not available. We know, however, from the Answers of the Civil Lord, that the question of British capital not being available does not even begin to arise in this case.
The case makes it obvious that the only interpretation we can place on the Chancellor's formula, which I have quoted, is that the nation is best safeguarded by robbing the British people of their own assets and selling them to foreigners whose interest is merely the profit motive. I object to the slur on the public that it is of greater advantage to the nation for their assets to be handed over even to British private enterprise

firms, but when we reach the position in which those assets are sold over the heads of British firms for foreign capital it is a shocking insult to the whole nation. Why do not the Government get up off their knees and set about the job of putting Britain across in world markets? It is no wonder that we have such a shocking record of production as distinct from so many European countries when we see this kind of policy from the Government.
I want to pay my deep and sincere respect to, and to express the thanks of the whole British Labour movement to, the shop stewards and the other workers who serve so well at S. G. Browne's, and, indeed, to the management, who have been wise and big enough to meet them half-way. I sympathise with both in not having a Government possessed of half their sense of responsibility.
To the many people who have been misled into believing that the British trade union movement is irresponsible and selfish, I commend the story of S. G. Brown. Under public ownership, in both war and peace, it is a credit to every one of us. I should be very surprised if, during the whole period I have been covering, the word "patriotism" has ever been mentioned in the firm. I merely comment that the facility to slobber this word from Tory election platforms is not necessarily the best method of displaying love of country.
I have tried to examine as many of the questions connected with this sorry business as I can, but there is one question to which I can never find the answer: why do the Tories hate the British people so much?

4.8 p.m.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing): The hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) has made his usual vigorous, rumbustious speech, not quite in the same key that he achieved yesterday, but perhaps that we because his material on this occasion was even weaker than it was yesterday.
The hon. Member asked, first, whether I would make an explanation about the date of the announcement. The sale agreement named 30th June as the vesting date. We were ready to make an announcement on 10th June. My noble Friend and I felt that it was in the interests of the employees of the firm


that the earlier possible announcement should be made. Speculation had, naturally, risen in the factory. After careful thought, we concluded that it was most important to stop the circulation of rumours, which might be inaccurate and which certainly would be unsettling for the people who worked there.
I therefore wrote to the hon. Members most concerned, including a personal letter to the hon. Member for Newton and also to my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Farey-Jones), on 10th June, and we made the announcement in the factory on Monday, 13th June. The very fact that we are having the debate today before the final vesting date surely suggests to any fair-minded, objective person in the Committee that this was not in any way a discourtesy; nor have we inhibited discussion in the House of Commons. If we had, we should not be having the debate today. I feel that it was right to take into consideration and put first and foremost—and I am surprised that I have not the agreement of the hon. Member for Newton in this—the feelings of those who were working in the firm and to try to stop any unsettling or inaccurate rumours at the earliest possible date.
Just a year ago we debated whether S. G. Brown should be retained in public ownership, whether the taxpayers should be called upon to contribute yet again, or whether the firm should be sold. The House of Commons first decided that it should not remain nationalised and the House then endorsed the Government's decision on that point. In the year since our last debate quite a lot has happened. The country has endorsed the Government's policy and their administration. The country showed that it had absolutely no love for nationalisation. The General Election voting at Watford where S. G. Brown had been made a main electoral platform by the Labour Party in the area, showed more than the average United Kingdom swing towards the Government and my hon. Friend the Member for Watford. I think that this is a double endorsement of our decision.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: What does the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Farey-Jones) think about it?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Watford will have an opportunity of catching your eye, Sir Gordon, and of expressing his views later.
After the General Election, the Labour Party, properly assessing the average person's views about nationalisation, immediately tried to exorcise this ghost—Clause 4—from its constitution. We are not, therefore, debating today the decision to denationalise S. G. Brown. That decision was taken, and has been thoroughly endorsed. We are debating, first, whether the considerations which the Government outlined to the House of Commons have been met and, secondly, whether the price obtained for the taxpayers was reasonable.
Without going over the whole of last year's debate, perhaps I might be allowed to recapitulate briefly the reasons for the sale. We believe that it is no function of a Government Department to run a limited liability company trading on commercial lines and competing with other public companies. Secondly, in a nuclear age, the war potential argument which was the "official" reason—and I underline "official"—for retaining it in 1946 no longer holds water.

Mr. H. Wilson: Since the hon. Gentleman has enunciated a general principle which seems to apply to the Government's attitude, does this apply to other limited liability companies operating on commercial lines at present held by the Government?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Perhaps the right hon. Member will put down a series of Questions. I am not prepared to answer that now. No limited liability companies are still held by the Admiralty. I am not, therefore, concerned with the question. Perhaps the right hon. Member will put a Question to those of my right hon. Friends who are concerned.

Mr. Wilson: As I had to remind his predecessor, the hon. Gentleman is surely replying for the Government and not the Admiralty. He has enunciated a general principle. Does that apply, for example, to Short Brothers?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: It was exactly for that reason that I used the words "Government Department". I should be perfectly prepared to answer for any other


private firms remaining in Admiralty ownership, but there is none. I cannot, therefore, answer at the Dispatch Box for them. The right hon. Gentleman knows this perfectly well.
The third reason for the sale was that if the firm was to progress a considerable amount of extra capital needed to be injected. The hon. Member for Newton has admitted this. We could not see Why the taxpayer should be called upon to foot the bill. It was no longer necessary to carry on at the taxpayer's expense What the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) called in last year's debate "this experiment in Socialism."
I come now to the considerations which the Government had in mind when negotiating the sale. I think that these are best dealt with before the price, because, obviously, these considerations must have some effect on the number of companies interested and the price we secured. I can summarise them best as follows. The business was to be kept as a going concern, using the Watford premises and its precision machinery. It was to carry on with existing projects and retain the highly skilled manpower Which had been built up. The sale had to avoid the danger of creating a monopoly in S. G. Brown's field of work. The firm must not come under foreign control. Lastly, the Admiralty would assure itself that the sale would not damage the licensing agreement estabblished in 1957 between S. G. Brown and the American Bosch Arma Corporation.
These, then, were the four considerations governing the negotiations. I can hest reassure the Committee on these four aspects if I describe the sale procedure. Originally, about 50 or 60 firms—not 42 firms—asked for details of the company. These were supplied. Owing mainly to the difficulty in the valuation of the considerable amount of very specialised work in progress, audited accounts were not available for them till December last. Offers were invited in January, 1960, and about 15 firms and individuals appeared to be still interested at that time. These 15 firms and individuals received audited accounts.
Three firm offers were received which were discussed in confidence with the bidders, without, of course, disclosing

the number or identity of the other bidders or the prices they had offered. I can say, in parentheses, that the other two firms were wholly British firms. As a result, three final bids were received of which de Havillands Holdings was the best in real terms. Moreover, we preferred the de Havillands bid because it seemed most surely and thoroughly to meet the considerations of sale. De Havillands offered the best prospect of fully employing S. G. Brown's capacity not only in the short term, but in the long term, both of which we had to take into consideration. It seemed to offer the best prospect of carrying on the precision work with Which Browns are long familiar.

Mr. Ellis Smith: So that we may judge correctly, would it be fair to ask the names of the two others who made offers? If it is not fair, I do not press it.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I do not think it is. I said this once before about the price, and because of the special circumstances I gave way, but I do not think that in negotiations of this kind one gives the names of the other people. They may want to make other approaches. By revealing their names I might undermine their position. There are confidential considerations.
Throughout the negotiations our main consideration was to keep the staff and the engineers and the skilled manpower together, and we paid meticulous attention to this point during the whole of our deliberations. The hon. Member for Newton did not challenge me on monopoly, but I would underline that the assurance which he gave last time on this is clearly and thoroughly watertight under the new provisions. By the sale to de Havillands we shall avoid creating a monopoly in the main gyro-compass field, because de Havillands is not connected with the Sperry Gyroscope Company which is the only other English firm, though American-owned, making the marine gyro-compass.
The hon. Member for Newton seemed to make a great deal of play of the question of British control. The considerations of sale provided, as I have already said, safeguards against foreign control, which were agreed with de Havillands and the Bosch Arma Corporation. Agreements were reached on amended articles


of association providing against the transfer of more than 49 per cent. of the total capital—present capital and future issues. These prevented more than 49 per cent. of the voting rights being transferred to foreign or foreign-controlled interests. There was also an undertaking not to alter the relevant articles without the consent, in writing, of Her Majesty's Government.
The hon. Gentleman asked me—I think that this was his suggestion—whether I was committing future Governments. I cannot do that, but as I have given this undertaking it would be open to any future Opposition, presumably, to challenge any future Government as to whether the conditions had so changed that it made it necessary to change this aspect.

Mr. Lee: The hon. Gentleman says that within the conditions of sale is the point about the 49 per cent. which cannot be raised. He said that only with the permission of the Government could it be altered. I would ask him to say that the Government, if they are approached, will not agree to the percentage being altered.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: There is absolutely no intention at present of making any change.

Mr. Lee: What about the future?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I would not stand at this Dispatch Box and commit a future Government if, in ten, twenty, thirty or forty years' time, it became in the interests of the firm, its employees and the nation to make a change. All I am saying is that there is no intention at present and that if a change were made the Government of the day would have to justify it.

Mr. John Morris: The hon. Gentleman referred to the special articles of association. Surely they could themselves be altered next year by the ordinary company procedure?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Yes, it was because that could be done that we got the further undertaking—

Mr. Morris: Surely it could be broken?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: —that it cannot be done—both Bosch Arma and de Havillands have agreed to it—without reference to and the permission of Her Majesty's Government. That is why we have a second line of protection. I think that with these very special measures for British control—they are continuing measures—British control is safeguarded far more surely than in any normal commercial practice.
The last consideration of sale—the continuation of the association with Bosch Arma—will, I think, in this agreement be not only continued, but strengthened. In the long-term interest of the firm, we are sure that extra money and effort was needed behind the research and development programme of S. G. Brown Ltd. Those who know the firm know that, although it was good, it was on a rather modest level and has been for some years. Extra strength for the research and development side is most easily accomplished by an agreement on the present lines.
I think that it is only right that the Committee should have some details about the American Bosch Arma Corporation. It is a public company employing not 950 people, as does S. G. Brown Ltd., but 8,500. Its turnover is not £1½ million, but £40 million. It employs in its laboratories not 20 people, as does S. G. Brown Ltd., but more than 1,000 people. Its research and development manpower is not 2 per cent. of the total employees, but more than 20 per cent.
Surely, that shows the technical strength which this firm will put behind S. G. Brown Ltd. But even those figures are minute compared with the strength in research, development, management, sales staff and finance now available to S. G. Brown Ltd. through de Havillands and the Hawker Siddeley Company. I should have thought that any unprejudiced person would see that S. G. Brown Ltd. is likely to benefit from such an association.
It was in 1957 that the management of S. G. Brown Ltd., realising the necessity of building modern techniques into its gyro-compasses, found that the Bosch Arma Corporation was so much in advance that it entered into a licensing agreement. The Arma division of the company—it has two divisions, the Bosch and the Arma—has for many


years designed and manufactured gyrocompasses using the 2° of freedom flotation principle. This compass has the added advantage of not needing so much insulation against shock. It is also small. It is, therefore, suitable for use in tanks and other vehicles as well as ships.
The company designs and manufactures control, navigation and other systems involving advanced electronics, and it has developed inertia guidance systems for land, sea and air. It developed the guidance system for the Atlas intercontinental ballistic missile, and the fact that that missile has successfully completed trials over 5,000 miles speaks well, I think, for the Bosch Arma development work.
Under the existing licence agreement—there is an existing agreement with the American Bosch Arma Corporation—S. G. Brown Ltd. has the sole right to manufacture and sell the Bosch Arma miniature gyro-compass throughout the world except for military requirements in North America. The association of S. G. Brown Ltd. with the American Bosch Arma Corporation and that corporation's great technical and financial resources will now be much closer than it has been in the past. This new relationship holds out the possibility of an expansion of the present limited arrangements between the two companies to enable S. G. Brown Ltd. to manufacture and sell on a similar basis other precision equipment developed and manufactured by American Bosch Arma. This must be to the mutual advantage of the firms.
Nor is a licensing agreement of this sort in any way unique. The hon. Member for Newton seemed to attack us on this issue. But every major firm in this country in the gyro-compass or gyro field has a tie-up with a United States partner. Sperry is linked with Sperrys, in the United States. Elliots is linked with Bendix and North American Aviation. English Electric is linked with Minneapolis Honeywell under a licensing agreement. Ferranti is linked with Kearfott.
Having grown up in the electronic and engineering world, I hope that every hon. Member of the Committee who has a knowledge of these things will agree that this is the sort of agreement which produces healthy co-operation and scientific progress and that it must be in the long-

term interests of every single person who is associated with and works with S. G. Brown Ltd.
I now come to the question of price. The Committee has to decide whether we have received on behalf of the taxpayer a reasonable price. Opinions expressed during the last debate varied rather widely. The right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) put up the bottom bid when he said:
How anybody thinks that the firm will be sold after this debate, I cannot imagine—
The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) interjected:
It will be given away.
The right hon. Member for West Bromwich replied:
Yes, it will be given away."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 25th June, 1959; Vol. 607, c. 1427.]
That was the bottom bid, but it was totally wrong.
At the opposite end of the scale, my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who admitted during the debate that he was not a chartered accountant, produced a very much bigger figure—£1½ million or even million. Indeed, it became a dutch auction. We seem to lose reality when we have a scale from 0 to about £2 million.

Mr. J. J. Mendelson: Will the hon. Gentleman explain the peculiar attitude of his Department to the firm in starving it of capital when preparations were being made to sell it?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: How anyone could say that the firm was starved of capital when it had a bank overdraft of £440,000 beats me. I concede that it will need more, but I shall come to that point later. It has not had any difficulty with working capital to date. I shall show in a moment what the taxpayers have put behind the firm in successive years.
Our declared aim was to sell the company as a going concern, which means that we were concerned not with the break up value of assets, but with the profits. In this instance, with the considerations which I have outlined already, we are more concerned with the average net profit. For the sake of the record and for the information of the Committee, I think that it might be useful if I gave briefly the net profits before deducting tax during the last ten years.


I have rounded the figures to the nearest £1,000. The figures are, beginning with 1950, £48,000, £74,000, £101,000, £142,000, £201,000, £132,000, £126,000, £158,000, £115,000 and—the figure fell last year—£6,000.
The average net profit for the past ten years was £114,000. Last year's profit fell alarmingly, partly because of the slump in the shipbuilding industry and, therefore, fewer orders for the marine gyro.

Mr. James H. Hoy: We must be fair about this. The hon. Gentleman's own accounting officer, in reporting to the Public Accounts Committee, said that the amount of profit which the firm earned was strictly limited by the decision of the Government, including the Admiralty itself.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I think that the hon. Gentleman means that the amount of dividend which was paid was limited, but not the profits, and this comes out in the accounts.
Last year's profits fell off for three reasons. First, there was the slump in the shipbuilding industry, and orders from there fell. Secondly, the increased engineering wages could not be passed on without losing business to competitors. Thirdly, there was uncertainty about the prices on certain other very large orders, prices which were being negotiated at the time. The directors' estimate for the year ended March, 1960—the last financial year—is that net profits seem more likely to recover to about £90,000. This information was given in confidence to those who were most interested.
We achieved a price of £775,000. There are many different ways of estimating whether this was fair. We took the opinion of a well-known firm of accountants—Messrs. Thomson McLintock and Company. The accountants said that they felt that this price placed a fair and reasonable value on the undertaking as a going concern, taking into account that the settlement was in cash immediately and that the offer was the best submitted.

Mr. John Diamond: Could the hon. Gentleman tell us the date of the valuation and of the certificate given?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Not without notice. I will get the information for the hon. Member and pass it to him if it will help him with his speech later.

Mr. Mendelson: Was the final offer received not influenced by the low profits made in that year? Was it wise procedure for the Government, being the custodians of the public interest, to put the firm on sale at that time?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: For the information of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond), I am told that the valuation was in April this year.
In reply to the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), of course there was some influence, but the fact that I came to say that the directors' forecast that they would recover to £90,000 suggested that this was a temporary dip and, therefore, that the buyers would not be unduly influenced by a fall, since that fall would clearly, in the coming years, be recovered. It was thought that about £90,000 was a fair measure of profit in that year which had concluded and possibly for the future.
Bearing in mind the bank overdraft of £440,000—which the buyer has taken on—it will be generally agreed that the price is satisfactory. In last year's debate the right hon. Member for West Bromwich recalled his service at the Admiralty—I believe that he was undertaking half my present job, since he was Parliamentary and Financial Secretary and not Civil Lord. He said that in taking
… the decision to retain the firm … we were also influenced by the fact that to retain the firm would not cost the Admiralty anything at all."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th June, 1959; Vol. 607, c. 1425]
I will show that since that date the Admiralty, or, rather, the taxpayer, through the Admiralty, has been called on to furnish £485,000. It was a bad forecast by the right hon. Gentleman in 1946, and it was as wrong as his forecast of the price last year.
In 1946–47, £180,000 was furnished in the form of ordinary shares; in 1948, 3½ per cent. debentures of which there is outstanding £555,000. In 1956, ordinary £1 shares worth another £90,000 were put into the firm and there was also an unsecured loan of £160,000. Thus, the taxpayer has been called upon throughout the years to put considerable sums of money into this firm.

Mr. H. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman is giving figures of the loans made by the Admiralty to this firm. He found that this was costing the taxpayer—through the Admiralty—something. On that basis, is not Colvilles costing £50 million? How much is de Havillands costing the taxpayer?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: De Havillands has development contracts, but I know of no Government help other than Government contracts. Practically every firm in the engineering field has Government contracts. It is a canard to suggest that they are in receipt of vast public funds other than development contracts. These sums for S. G. Brown, Ltd. came out of the Admiralty Votes and therefore, ultimately, from the taxpayer, and they have not been repaid.

Mr. Wilson: Mr. Wilson rose—

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I have given way several times. The right hon. Gentleman will make his speech later. I do not want to keep other hon. Members out of the debate.

Mr. Wilson: On a point of order. The hon. Gentleman says that he is answering for the Admiralty and not the Government in giving us some figures on the Admiralty Vote. We are on the Admiralty Vote in Committee. Is the hon. Gentleman answering on the Admiralty Votes and, if so, can he say whether the figures in them are above the line or below the line?

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Harry Legge-Bourke): It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman was addressing that question to the hon. Gentleman the Civil Lord of the Admiralty. I thought that he was raising a point of order. It cannot be a point of order if the only person who can answer it is a Minister.

Mr. Dudley Williams: On a point of order.

Mr. Wilson: Surely it is a fair point of order to ask, Sir Harry, since we are on Supply, whether this is a Supply Vote or a below-the-line contribution by the Government?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: This was on the Admiralty Vote and, therefore, came directly on the taxpayer. That is correct and I have tried to keep the Committee

as fully informed as possible. There was provision in last year's Navy Estimates for a further £250,000. If the firm is to develop and expand and keep pace with modern developments—and deal with its overdraft—more than £250,000 of new capital will be needed.
In settling this sale we feel that we have thoroughly followed the conditions which were outlined to the Committee last year. We have effected a sale which is in the greatest interest of the taxpayer and, above all, one which must be in the long-term interest of all those who work or are associated with S. G. Brown, Ltd.

Mr. Diamond: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, would he answer one point which he has so far failed to answer? Why did the Government decide to sell now?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: It is a matter of timing.

Mr. Diamond: Yes.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I shall answer that.
The Committee voted on this matter on 25th June last year and we had a majority of 49. We then started negotiations as soon as the accounts of the preceding year were made available and we interested all these people. It was the decision of the House of Commons and of the electorate that we should go ahead with this. We were also affected by the fact that if we were not to sell now there would only be further injections of the taxpayers' money into the firm, and this is not necessarily in the interests of the taxpayers. We would not necessarily have received a better price by injecting further capital over and above that which had already been injected. Those are the considerations which prompted the sale.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. John Dugdale: The Civil Lord has taken the place of another hon. Member who spoke for the Government on this subject last year. I am not certain that the change has benefited S. G. Brown Ltd., or that the Committee has been given any more information than it had before.
The most remarkable thing that the Civil Lord has told us was that he considered that any money invested by the


Government was a loss, a drain on the taxpayer. For someone who is not only Civil Lord, but Financial Secretary to the Admiralty, that is a most extraordinary confession of ignorance. Is it a loss when de Havilland's invests more money? Is it a loss when Imperial Chemicals invests more money? Of course it is not. Why does the hon. Gentleman not consider a Government firm in exactly the same way as he considers a private firm? Why does he not consider that, far from being a loss, further investment might be a sign that the company was doing well and that it was better to put more money in it?

Mr. Dudley Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dugdale: I have only just begun.

Mr. Dudley Williams: It is important. In certain circumstances I accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but will he not agree that when the profits of a company have fallen from £200,000 in 1954 to £5,821 in 1959, money which has been invested in the company has probably been lost?

Mr. Dugdale: That is quite different from the point which the Civil Lord made, but perhaps more valid. I will answer that, too.
When I made the remarks which the Civil Lord quoted, I was referring to the time in 1946 when the question of whether the firm of S. G. Brown should be sold first arose. I said that at that time the company was doing well and was not losing money. What the situation is today is quite another matter. We have had the Admiralty run by a Conservative Administration for ten years and it may well be that the firm is not doing as well as it was.
Much more information should be given to us, because it has clearly come out today that the Admiralty has been considering the sale for some time, and it appears that it allowed the affairs of the firm to run down in the knowledge that this sale was to be made. That is most astonishing and it is a matter to which I shall return.
I was intimately concerned with the original decision to retain S. G. Brown, which was retained for reasons which

Sir John Lang, Permanent Secretary to the Admiralty, stated to the Public Accounts Committee:
We came to the conclusion at the end of the war that the right course to follow was to keep S. G. Brown, because the war potential of a high precision engineering firm of this kind, particularly one manufacturing compasses, was very important indeed.
That was what we thought then, but things have apparently changed, because last year the then Civil Lord made the most extraordinary statement that:
… in recent years the advent of the nuclear weapon has altered thinking about the nature of a future war and the need to preserve future war potention. … This is the crux of the argument. Nowhere are we retaining capacity because we might require it in wartime."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th June, 1959; Vol. 607, c. 1413.]
Presumably, that also applies to the Army and the Royal Air Force and apparently all the forces are being kept in being not from any consideration of their effect as war potential, but entirely for the limited business which they now have to undertake. That is what appears from that speech. It was an extraordinary remark and it is now, presumably, out of date, because the Government's policy towards nuclear armament appears to have somewhat altered since that time.
When we were considering the sale of the firm, we had various considerations to bear in mind. At no point did we consider selling it to an American firm. That never entered our minds, but apparently it entered the minds of the Government at a very early stage. Let me deal, first, with the question of price. We were told that three other firm offers were made. It has been made abundantly clear time and again, and it was made clear in the hon. Gentleman's speech today and in his earlier statement, that nobody was likely to make an offer if it was known that there was a definite tie-up with the Bosch Arma Corporation, and that the Admiralty would not sell to any firm likely to break that tie.
Such a knowledge cripples any sale and it is impossible to conduct a sale in those conditions. It is obvious that in those conditions only the Bosch Arma Corporation could buy the firm, and the Government must have known that a long time ago. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) said, the


Government had decided long ago to sell the firm to the Bosch Arma Corporation. I agree that the Civil Lord cannot admit that in public, but everyone will come to the conclusion that the Government must have decided to sell the firm long ago.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of the size and knowledge of the Bosch Arma Corporation. Obviously, a firm of that size has great knowledge, but on that basis the more small firms are sold to big firms, the better. The whole of his argument was in favour of more and more mergers and fewer and fewer firms so as to get the benefit of the big firm's greater knowledge. It is useful to know that the Government have that interesting idea even though they have been talking about the desirability of free enterprise and of having many small firms. Apparently, the large firm with great knowledge is the firm to which the Government think it most desirable to sell a company such as S. G. Brown.
The Civil Lord said that S. G. Brown was instructed not to take any further orders and the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Farey-Jones) made the interesting observation that new orders which recently came to S. G. Brown came from the other side of the water.

Mr. Farey-Jones: I know that the right hon. Gentleman would not like to misrepresent me. I referred not to new orders coming from the other side, but to modifications of the compass as a result of scientific information from the other side.

Mr. Dugdale: I am sorry. I thought that I had taken down the hon. Gentleman's words accurately. I gather that a great deal of knowledge came from the other side and that by that time the Bosch Arma Corporation had obviously concluded that the deal was finally on. The information which came to S. G. Brown came, therefore, only when the corporation was certain of the deal. In other words, as soon as it was known that the Government were determined to sell to the Bosch Arma Corporation, the affairs of S. G. Brown began to look up. The value of the firm stayed down until then, but afterwards it began to rise higher.
I want now to refer to American ownership in general. We are told that

there is only a 49 per cent. American interest in de Havillands. An interest of 49 per cent. is not control, but it is very near it. [Laughter.] I can only say that if the Civil Lord had a firm in which I had a 49 per cent. interest I think that he would have to pay at least some attention to what I said, especially when that firm was linked with another firm which I owned.
What is the policy of the Government on this matter? It is that British private ownership of industry is best, that American private industry is second-best and that British public ownership comes last. Not only S. G. Brown is in the hands of a firm which is partially American-controlled. In a very interesting book which is in the Library, a book called "Who Owns Whom?", we are told that in May, 1960, nearly 500 American firms together had 650 subsidiaries in the United Kingdom. That is an extraordinary position which the Opposition view with considerable disquiet. S. G. Brown is now to be added to that list. It would, therefore, seem to be in keeping with the general policy of the Government to increase the number of American firms which have a controlling interest in this country.

Mr. A. E. Cooper: The right hon. Member has disclosed the number of subsidiaries of American firms in this country. Will he also give the Committee the number of subsidiaries of British companies in the United States?

The Temporary Chairman: I hardly think that is relevant to this debate.

Mr. Dugdale: I will not pursue the matter further, except to say that I am convinced that it is nothing like the figure that I gave a moment ago for American subsidiaries.

Mr. Dudley Williams: Quite wrong.

Mr. Dugdale: We know that the Government are determined to sell out any industry which is being run at a profit by a Government Department. The Civil Lord gave the whole case away in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson). So far as I could understand from that reply the policy of the Government is to sell out any firm which is now being run by the


Government, or in which the Government have a large interest. Short Bros. and other firms have been referred to, but the Civil Lord rode that off by saying that they are not directly the concern of the Admiralty.
As my right hon. Friend explained, the hon. Member is speaking not for the Admiralty alone, but for the Government, and it would therefore appear to be the policy of the Government that firms which are run by the Government and are a success are from now on to recognise that they are to be sold to private interests—and without any tribute being paid to the workers in those firms. My hon. Friend the Member for Newton paid a glowing tribute to the workers, but I did not notice one worth-while tribute from the Civil Lord.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I must correct that. When the hon. Member reads HANSARD I hope that he will rescind that statement. I went out of my way to say that throughout the negotiations we paid the greatest respect to the conditions and the continuity of work, and to the importance of keeping the skilled team together. We underlined that fact in our announcement. This announcement, which has been criticised, was made out of consideration for the people who work in the firm, although I recognised that I should have to answer for that in this House. That was the case from start to finish. We showed special consideration far the workers.

Mr. Dugdale: The Government could best show their consideration for the workers by retaining the firm. They are, instead, willing to give it away at a price which is obviously no reflection of the work being done by the workers in the firm, but is a reflection of the tie-up with the Bosch Arma Corporation. If the Government had not made that tie-up there would never have been that relatively low price. There would have been free competition when they decided to sell. It is the tie-up with the Bosch Arma Corporation that has kept the price down.
Unlike the party opposite, we place British public enterprise above American private enterprise as being desirable for this country. We would like to see more British public enterprise and not less.

We condemn this sell-out because it is against the interests of the Admiralty; it is against the interests of the Royal Navy, and it is against the interests of this nation. I am surprised that the hon. Member, representing the Admiralty, should have taken action so contrary to the interests of the Admiralty and the Royal Navy, and disgusted with the party opposite for taking action of a kind which is so inimical to the good of the entire nation.

4.54 p.m.

Mr. John Arbuthnot: I am glad to have the opportunity of following the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale), because I think that the Committee will be disgusted with the slimy speech he has made. He has cast aspersions against people and organisations without rhyme or reason. He has tried to slur the Bosch Arma Corporation by suggesting that only after the Government had shown that they were determined to sell out to that company did it provide the "know-how" to S. G. Brown, Ltd., with which it had been in partnership for some time, which enabled profitable modifications to be made to the gyro.
He cast aspersions on American investment in this country. At the same time, his party has expressed surprise and pain when American investors decide to invest on the Continent rather than to come here to help boost British production and employment.

Mr. Dugdale: I did not say that I do not welcome American investment; I object to American control.

Mr. Arbuthnot: There is no American control in this case. The right hon. Gentleman was talking about American investment. In this case control is exercised by de Havillands and, as my hon. Friend has made quite clear, firm arrangements have been made to ensure that control by the Bosch Arma Corporation will not come about but that the firm will remain in British hands. The right hon. Gentleman also said that at no stage did he consider selling to an American firm. We have not considered selling to an American firm, either. We have made sure that the control will remain in British hands.
From the speeches to which we have listened from hon. Members opposite,


I can find no valid reason against this sale of S. G. Brown. In fact, from what has been said so far I think that the sale has been an excellent thing. There are many reasons why I think this, which I propose to develop in a few moments.
The Government are being taken to task by the Opposition for selling this firm, one of whose functions—and a minor function only—is to supply gyroscopic equipment to the Admiralty. I came into the matter at a much earlier stage, when there was criticism of the Admiralty, and I was one of the critics, but my criticism was from the opposite point of view to that taken up by the Opposition. I felt 'that the public money being spent in increasing quantities on this firm was being provided under conditions which the Admiralty could not justify, and that it was no part of the duty of the Admiralty to own and run a firm the majority of whose activities were purely of a commercial nature.
My criticism of the Admiralty, if I have one now, is that it did not sell S. G. Brown five years ago, rather than keep the taxpayers' money at risk in a commercial enterprise in a highly competitive field. If we look at the profits made by the firm, after deducting all expenses, we find that they have never been so high as they were in 1954. In fact, the Government would probably have been able to obtain the highest price for the firm if it had sold in 1954, instead of waiting until now. Then it could have been sold at the top of an increasing crescendo.
I came into the matter as a member of the Public Accounts Committee. In the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the Navy Appropriation Account, 1955–56, we were told, in paragraph 24:
The firm's post-war Government orders were likely to be small, but it was well equipped for commercial orders and the Admiralty, whilst retaining general control sufficient to secure the national interest, gave the directors full authority to operate the firm as a commerical entity. For this purpose the Admiralty provided the firm with additional share capital amounting to £180,000 and also advanced £165,000, secured by a debenture, for the purpose of acquiring new premises.
The Comptroller and Auditor General also told Parliament that
the company's overdraft on 31st March, 1956, stood at £183,052.

The accounting officer was examined before the Public Accounts Committee—Report of the Public Accounts Committee Session 1956–57. In answer to Questions 2,892–3 and 4 he said that the Admiralty had told their director on the board of S. G. Brown that in order to assist the firm in seeking a loan from its bankers, the bankers might be told that it was the intention of the Admiralty so to adjust the capital structure of the company that the firm would be asking the bankers for temporary accommodation only. In other words, when other companies in a similar commercially competitive field, and run by private enterprise, were having to go to the market for money, this firm was able to shelter under the umbrella of being assured that whatever finances it needed could be obtained from the taxpayer.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: I think that the hon. Gentleman should be fair. Is he suggesting that the people of this country are taking an unfair advantage in the ownership of this firm if they secure money at lower rates than they would obtain it in the market? Does he deny the right of the people to get an advantage by their collective efforts, bearing in mind also that the Government are in receipt of a 5 per cent interest on the profits made by this company, which amount to £1,084,000 on the incomplete figures supplied by the Civil Lord?

Mr. Arbuthnot: I do not deny any right of the people of this country, but it seems to me to be totally improper that the Admiralty should have been using public funds in order to carry on what really amounts to an ordinary industrial company. That is not what the Admiralty is there for. In point of fact, the Admiralty, as I have said, should have got rid of S. G. Brown a very long time ago. If the company had been sold in 1954, the Admiralty might well have obtained a higher price than the present price. Not only that, but public money would not have been at risk for such a long time. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Civil Lord since 1954, during which period public money has continued to remain at risk, the profits of S. G. Brown have never begun to achieve the figure of £200,627 which was attained in that year. It was this situation which led me to suggest in 1957 that it


was quite wrong that the Admiralty should remain responsible for S. G. Brown. Therefore, I am very glad that the company is being sold now, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on the action he has taken.
We are told by hon. Members opposite that the price of £775,000 is too low for an enterprise for which the Government gave £55,750. That does not seem to me to be such a bad bargain on the part of the Government, particularly when one bears in mind the additional bank overdraft of £440,000 for which the purchasers of S. G. Brown are making themselves responsible.

Mr. John McCann: Considering the fact that the original purchase price was only £55,750 and the company has made over £1 million which has been ploughed back, is it not a fair assumption that £775,000 for something which cost £55,000 is a very good bargain indeed?

Mr. Arbuthnot: I think the real criterion of what a company is worth is its earning power. On the basis of earning power the company's annual earnings would seem to be reasonably assessed at £90,000 to £114,000. Suppose we take the higher figure of £114,000 as the prospective earning power, it means that the purchasers of the company are buying it on a 7¾year purchase basis. That does not seem to be a bad basis at all particularly when one bears in mind that it would be reasonable to expect that Government contracts in the future are likely to be less than they have been in the past.
We are also told by hon. Members opposite that the Government should be participating in the profits of this firm which is depicted by hon. Members opposite as being "a money spinner." If the firm is "a money spinner" the Government will certainly reap a benefit in the form of Income Tax and Profits Tax. It seems to me that they would be well advised to let other people take the risk while they are reaping the benefit in that way.
We are also told that it is wrong that there should be American participation to the extent even of a minority interest in the consortium which is taking over the company. I welcome American capital coming to this country. I wish

to see more of it coming here. We live in a capital-hungry world and the more American capital which comes here the more British capital will be freed for other worth-while enterprises. I believe that cross-fertilisation of capital from one country to another is a good thing. I think it an excellent thing that British capital should venture abroad, but we cannot expect British capital to be welcome in the United States if we jib at American capital coming here.
The more American capital that comes to this country, the more will it help to maintain full employment. Prejudice against American capital and the injection of American know-how" which will naturally come with it and is coming in this case—the sort of prejudice displayed by hon. Members opposite—does immense damage to our prosperity and national well-being.

Mr. Lee: I will leave the reading of the Suez debate's to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Arbuthnot: I probably know more about that than does the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee).
Listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Newton, one would have thought that the party opposite felt that Britain could "go it alone" and have a policy of isolation, a policy of drawing a cordon sanitaire round this country and not allowing American capital to come in. I should have thought that the defence policy of the party opposite, once it has been formulated, ought to recognise that Britain can no longer "go it alone", and the greater co-operation there is between enterprises here and in the United States the better it is for the mutual defence of the free world. It is, therefore, astonishing to me to find the hon. Gentleman making a speech such as he made about American capital coming into this country.

Mr. Gordon Walker: If the hon. Member is so unreservedly in favour of American investment here, would he be in favour of majority American holding in this company? If not, why not?

Mr. Arbuthnot: That is not the matter we are discussing.

Mr. Gordon Walker: It is the very matter.

Mr. Arbuthnot: It would be out of order if I were to yield to the temptation to go along the garden path down which the right hon. Gentleman invites me.
For all these reasons, I feel that this is a splendid thing that the Government are doing. I only wish that they had done it a little sooner.

5.11 p.m.

Mr. John Diamond: The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) made one of his main points that, according to his philosophy, it was not the job of the Admiralty to run a commercial business on behalf of the nation. I want him to get his ideas up-to-date.
I do not want him to live in the past. I would point out to him—subject to my history being accurate, which it never is—that it is at least eleven hundred years since this Department was nationalised. It was the first nationalised organisation of the Realm so far as I am aware, and we should be proud of it. The Civil Lord is suddenly waking up to the fact that he is running a nationalised organisation. Why does the hon. Member for Dover say it is not the job of this Department? It has been the job of the Admiralty for eleven hundred years to do this very thing—to organise its activities, with money paid by Her Majesty's subjects, on behalf of the State.

Mr. Arbuthnot: Is the hon. Member suggesting that Her Majesty's Government should take over Woolworth's?

Mr. Diamond: I am suggesting that it is a matter of opinion whether the Admiralty should or should not continue to run an important commercial firm in the interests of the nation. I am suggesting that it is not within the power of the hon. Member to say that, as a matter of edict and of law, it is outside the province of the Admiralty to do these very things. In fact, the normal and historic view of the Admiralty's rôle is that it should do all the things connected with it. This was one of the main reasons why the Admiralty retained this firm in private ownership. Now we have got to the stage when the Government have to justify the action taken at this time.
I am not at all satisfied with the way in which this matter has developed. I had no intention of burdening the Committee with a speech after having spoken

in the debate yesterday and I apologise for so doing, but it will have been observed that competition was not of the highest and, therefore, I am not keeping many of my hon. Friends out of the debate. The Government say they have the authority of the House to deal with this matter as they have done. The Civil Lord said that we had a debate last year and, curiously enough, the Government got a majority; therefore, they are entitled to do what they are doing. I challenge that, even with the Government's majority.
I deny that many hon. Members opposite who voted with the Government on that day, as sensible business men acting as honest trustees of the nation's purse would have voted for disposing of a national asset at the worst possible time for doing so if they knew that a loss was being made. Not one of us was told this fundamental point. Not one of us was told anything but that this was "a money spinner". The hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Farey-Jones), in whose constituency this firm is, told us that this was "a money spinner", or something to indicate that it was a highly profitable firm.
All we knew was that it was at the height of its profits and was continuing to make profits. Now we are told that, at the point of time when the debate was held, the company was running into serious difficulties and could reasonably expect losses. Yet the Government have the impudence to suggest that, because they deliberately misled the House into believing that this was a profitable firm, it was being sold while making profits and we would get a benefit by selling it at the worst possible time.

Mr. Farey-Jones: It is important for the clarity of the record to say that my reference to "a money spinner" was not to the administration of the firm as a whole, but to a particular gyro which will be in constant demand all over the world. That was the reference to "a money spinner", I am sure the hon. Member will accept what I say.

Mr. Diamond: Of course, I accept that the hon. Member is most accurate about what he said, but my memory also was accurate that part of the general impression we all got was that the company was doing jolly well, here was a money spinner and this was the time to


sell it. I am not saying that it would have influenced us on this side of the Committee, for we voted against it. I am saying to hon. Members opposite that they would not have been inclined to sell an asset of which they were trustees at the time which was the worst possible conjuncture of events for selling. So I say to the Civil Lord that he did not get the authority of the House. I use the term precisely and advisedly. The House was misled into giving a vote for the sale of this company at the worst possible time.
I also say to the Civil Lord that surely he is misleading the Committee into believing that he with his limited powers can control or prevent this company from becoming an American-owned company. Let us be clear about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) will correct me if I am wrong. Of course, if the Government had financial powers—which I do not think they have any longer—to prevent the sale of a company and retained those powers which they inherited from the Labour Government to prevent the transfer of securities from an English resident to an American resident, the Government could use those powers. That is the law of the land, but for the Civil Lord to say that he can incorporate in a particular deal powers which are extra-statutory is surely quite wrong
It is quite wrong to say that one can incorporate in a company's articles powers to prevent the company altering its articles. We cannot alter company law by saying that powers in the articles are greater than the law itself. That is an impossible proposition. The fact is that this is done by good will. If the hon. Gentleman had contented himself by saying that in this transaction the likelihood of the company passing to American control was less than in the case of any ordinary commercial firm—that the likelihood was less because it would incur the of the Government, there would be bad blood and these things are not done among pals—we would have accepted it.
I am not now on the point of whether it is wise or unwise that there should be American control. My hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) has dealt with that fully. I am saying to the Civil Lord that he, for the second time,

has misled us by suggesting that, in the agreement he stipulated between the parties on the sale of the assets, or shares of the company, he can incorporate something beyond the powers of the Companies' Act and make it impossible for the company to change its articles in order to permit this to happen. As everyone knows, the first essential of any public company is that it does not restrict the right of shareholders to transfer any of their shares. That is what the word "public" means. It does not mean that it is owned by the whole of the public, but that every shareholder has the free and unfettered right to transfer his shares.

Mr. Frank Bowles: Are not the articles of association a contract between the shareholders? I remember a case a long time ago when it was said in the articles that a solicitor's services would be held for life at a certain salary, but that was held not to be binding because the solicitor was not a shareholder. No change could be prevented, because the Government are not shareholders in this company.

Mr. Diamond: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that he was not the solicitor in question, because no firm would dream of getting rid of such an eminent and able solicitor. He is quite right. This is a contract between the shareholders, and any two adults who enter into a contract can amend that contract at a later stage.

Mr. Cyril Osborne: The hon. Member said that many of my hon. Friends would not have voted for the sale had they been aware that the company was making a loss, and that we were led to understand that it was making a big profit. Surely it depends upon the price which is being obtained for the company. If a good price is being obtained for a company which is making a loss, surely that is a better bargain than if the company were making a big profit.

Mr. Diamond: Yes, if we were living in a world of fantasy in which people will pay a good price for a so-called profitable company which in fact is not a profitable company. I said to the hon. Member specifically that he himself, as a trustee, would not dream of selling trustee assets at the worst possible time.


He replies, "If I got the same price as at the best possible time, I would". Of course he would, but neither of us is a child, and we are not living in wonderland but in the hard world as it is. I shall deal with the question whether the price was based on the figures, and that will relieve the hon. Member's conscience, because he will then know that he would not have voted for the sale at this time.
There is one further question which I wish to put before I deal with that. We have not been given a satisfactory answer to the allegation that the firm was starved of capital. The Civil Lord has indicated that it was with the greatest regret that the Government allowed further moneys to be loaned to this company, and I can only assume from his attitude that he begrudged any money which the Government let this company have. He called it all out to us in a biased way. He talked about "giving" the company money on loan. He does not talk about "giving" it when the firm of Colvilles is loaned money at a much lower rate of interest than it can obtain anywhere else.
This is consistent with an attitude of mind in which one regards the giving of it as unnecessary. I am not sufficiently aware of all the details, but my hon. Friend the Member for Newton, who no doubt has adequate evidence on which to base his statement, has told us that this company has been starved of capital. The Civil Lord, in effect, told us that he begrudged the amount of money which the company had. I must therefore assume, until we are told precisely and authoritatively to the contrary, that this company was starved of capital at this moment in time.

Mr. Arbuthnot: The opposite seems to be true, because the Admiralty director on the company was told that he could say to the company's bankers that the money would be required for a comparatively short time, because the Government would make the necessary arrangements for a reorganisation of capital. Thus, the bankers could afford to let the company have the additional money with no qualms. The hon. Member will find that on page 258 of the Minutes of Evidence given before the Public Accounts Committee, Questions Nos. 2892–94.

Mr. Diamond: I am grateful to the hon. Member. I shall have to explain to him what starvation means. Starvation, as I am using the term, is in relation to one's appetite. It is no use putting a meal which would satisfy me in front of a large elephant and saying, "There you are. There is steak and chips. You be satisfied with that." He requires more. A company which is advancing may require much more capital than a company which is not. It is nonsense to say that the fact that it was given some capital proves that it was not starved.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Reginald Maudling): An increase in the bank overdraft by £250,000 in one year for a company of this size is not evidence of capital starvation.

Mr. Diamond: That means absolutely nothing by itself. Every businessman and every accountant knows that to talk of the overdraft itself as indicating anything at all is utter nonsense until one knows what has happened to other things. I do not know what happened to the company. It may have had some debentures which it paid off or some rearrangement with the creditors or with the debtors, or it may have had to pay for some plant. There are a thousand-and-one reasons why the state of the overdraft by itself is utterly irrelevant. Nobody other than an extraordinarily stupid person would attempt to say that by itself it proves anything. It is, of course, indicative if we take all the other factors into account.
We have not had an answer to this question. If it is clear that the company has not been starved of capital, why was my hon. Friend the Member for Newton able to say, on evidence, that it has been starved of capital? Why did not the Civil Lord reply, "We were in touch with the company and said to them, 'Do you need any more capital in appropriate form? If you do, here it is'." Why did the Civil Lord say, "Look at all this money which we have given away", when it was loaned on interest? I am by no means satisfied that this company was not starved of capital.
I come to the most fundamental point. Why choose this moment to sell? I say seriously to hon. Members opposite


that they have done themselves enormous damage yesterday and today. [Laughter.] They can laugh this off here; hon. Members are in their seats today to laugh it off. They have done themselves enormous good hitherto by showing themselves to be flexibly-minded and to a certain degree progressive. Yesterday and today they have shown that they made a political decision some time ago, based on their political philosophy, and that, come what may, irrespective of the country's interest, they intend to drive that decision through at the worst possible time. This was the essence of our complaint yesterday, and it was proved—not in the Division Lobby, for we are much too sensible to be misled by that; but proved up to the hilt by the lack of argument from the Government Front Bench in the opening and closing speeches. We had to have a slap-dash finish to the debate yesterday.
I will not proceed further with that point but will return to today's debate. The point is exactly the same. The Government have said that, because they reached a political decision about denationalisation and confirmed their decision about a year ago in relation to this firm when it was making profits, then, notwithstanding that this is clearly the worst possible time at which to carry out that decision, they have nevertheless decided to do so and have let the interests of the State go hang. That is what they have done.

Mr. C. Osborne: Yesterday the Minister made it perfectly clear that, because of the condition of the stock market, the sale which was contemplated would be held up until conditions were good. That is how I understood it. It is, therefore, wrong of the hon. Member to say that we intend to sell at the worst possible moment. The policy will be carried out at the best possible moment.

Mr. Diamond: The hon. Member is quite wrong. I have HANSARD here and I will turn up the passage if he wishes, but he can rely on my recollection, for I listened most carefully. The Minister said that the Government would have to weigh in terms of priorities the need to get rid of all debentures and loan capital of the various companies which had been partly denationalised compared with the

need to dispose of the equity capital in Richard Thomas and Baldwins. That is precisely what the Government said, and it was reaffirmed when I put the point to the Minister yesterday. He would not go as far as to say that they would await the best time. How could he, with all his back benchers on his tail, urging him to get rid of the firm at the earliest possible minute, slobbering in anticipation of the wonderful stocks which are about to come into their hands. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) could hardly keep quiet at the thought of the wonderful stock. "Hear, hear, capital gains", he said. "Free of Income Tax", he said—and Surtax, which he did not say.
Do not let us be misled into thinking that the Government gave the slightest indication that they would act as a responsible trustee of the nation's purse and have regard to the best possible time for sale. Indeed, they are doing it again and having regard to the worst possible time. They have a chartered accountant's certificate, which I am sure is an absolutely valid certificate based on the facts put before the chartered accountant. I happen to be a member of that profession. Chartered accountants do not look to the future; they look to the facts as shown by the balance sheet. The balance sheet put to the chartered accountants, on which they based their valuation and said that it was a fair price, were accounts showing the worst possible situation in this company's history.
It is no use the Civil Lord waving his hand at me. He has to show me a letter from the accountants saying that they did not have regard to this loss of £6,000. [HON. MEMBERS: "It was a profit."] I am sorry. I mean profit, but it does not make much difference; the difference, all told, is only £12,000. He has to show that they did not have regard to this falling-off of profits, the worst profit that the company had made in the last ten years by a mile.
The Civil Lord has to show me that the accountants had regard to somebody's estimate—I do not know when; perhaps in January of this year—that if the company went well and the Government did not make a change in the Bank Rate—indeed, provided that the Tory Government did not continue in office—S. G. Brown would make £90,000 profit in the


future. A fine firm of chartered accountants which is likely to have its decisions affected by some problematical future event of that kind! Of course not. The accountants very properly based their certificate on the hard facts put before them. They are not to be criticised. The Government are to be criticised and condemned once more for disposing of the State's assets at the worst possible time.

5.32 p.m.

Mr. Farey-Jones: I am particularly happy to have an opportunity of entering this discussion, if for only one reason—and that is to clear up the muddle-mindedness, malicious and even malevolent thinking of the Opposition on this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes. If hon. Members opposite will extend to me the courtesy that I extended to the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee), I will make my case very clear indeed.
After all, I am the Member for Watford. I am closer to these people, S. G. Brown, than is any other Member in the Committee. I am familiar with the company's administration, with its shop stewards and with the people working on the benches because I have been in and out of that factory in war and in peace—and by that I mean before the election, during the election and after the election—and I shall be in and out of that factory during the next election and after the next election with perhaps an even doubled majority as a result of what I am about to say.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Newton is not in his place. I can quite understand it, because he has probably been waiting for me to be called and I have not been called until now. Listening to the hon. Gentleman, one would have thought that we had come here to bury Caesar, not to praise him. Listening to other Opposition speakers, one would have thought that we had come here for the burial obsequies of S. G. Brown instead of having regard to the true fact, that S. G. Brown is today at the beginning of a very remarkable future because—and I beg every hon. Member of Her Majesty's Opposition to listen to this—this firm on 30th June becomes part of a family spread all over the world, completely peerless in its own field, and if its administration, personnel and

workers rise to the opportunity now presented to the company their future will be far more assured than a dozen Government Departments could ever make it.
In case I should forget, let me make clear at once that I am second to none, not even to the hon. Member for Newton, in paying my tribute to the very remarkable crew which runs this company. I use the word "crew" because it covers everyone, from the captain to the cabin boy. My approach to the whole of this problem from the very beginning has been completely consistent. The decision whether the company was to be bought or to be sold was arrived at, and fought out immediately prior to the last election. There were even Members of the Opposition, many of them, as well as Members of my own party, who deeply sympathised with the Member for Watford in the situation in which he was placed immediately before the election, because had the 1,000 or so workers in S. G. Brown, with their families, taken the violent opposition to the measure which we have heard from the Opposition Front Bench today, they could have put me out of business.

Mr. S. Silverman: What did the hon. Member tell them?

Mr. Farey-Jones: I told them the blunt truth. The blunt truth which I told them, and, which I told the House in the last debate, was this. I invite the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) to look up what I said in that debate. No hon. Member and no constituent of mine is under any misapprehension as to where I stand or where I have stood from the very beginning. I repeat this to new hon. Members, as well as to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne.
First, I do not believe that—the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne asked for it, so I am giving it—either this or any other Government, or even if hon. Members opposite ever form a Government in my lifetime again, should engage in any kind of business in peace time. That is a fundamental tenet of my belief. Secondly, it is the bounden duty of a good Government to create a climate in which business can prosper and thrive, native genius can develop and expand, and the fruits and rewards of hard work can be kept by the people who have done that hard work. [Interruption.] I


beg hon. Members to listen to me because they will get some wisdom at least if they do. That does not mean that I accept that the Government should abrogate that responsibility to provide a minimum standard of living—and that a very just one for all concerned—and a standard below which no one should be allowed to go.
Further, I regard—it may be that I am alone in the Committee in thinking this, but I hope that I am not alone—all taxation as inherently evil. I do not think, as I believe one of the leading Members of the Opposition Front Bench does, that it is a virtue. I believe that good government consists in keeping taxation at the absolute minimum. I shall not dilate on this point, but I think that I have given the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne an adequate answer to his question.
I want to clarify the position as regards S. G. Brown, Ltd. From the very beginning my sole concern in this matter was to preserve the employment of the labour force and to retain the skills and techniques so prevalent and prominent in the firm. Any truthful Member of the House of Commons will remember perfectly well the fight that I put up, both inside and outside the Chamber, to achieve that end.
The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) should bear in mind what I achieved from the then First Lord of the Admiralty, the Earl of Selkirk. He was at that time in another place and is now carrying out a very hard responsibility in his inimitable way in the Far East. This company, on the conditions that I obtained from the Admiralty, could not be sold on what I call a chartered accountant's valuation. In view of my particular interest in my own people, I obtained these undertakings from the Government:
(i) The business should be kept as a going concern under efficient management and not allowed to disintegrate.
(ii) The Government will not sell to a purchaser unless he can convince us that he will be able not only to maintain but to develop to the full the potentialities of the high-precision manufacturing capacity which already exists in the firm.
The hon. Member for Gloucester will know full well that thirty offers could be received for such a firm, but even that one

condition would cause the Government seriously to consider whether to reject or accept an offer.
Further guarantees were obtained:
(iii) Whoever purchases the firm will be required to make full use of the premises at Watford and to assure us that they will carry through as far as practicable projects already under development by S. G. Brown.
Further, the Government pledged that they regarded
future development in the firm as of the greatest importance and will consider as possible purchasers only firms which can assure us of their ability to provide continuity of employment of the same highly skilled type.
It is not my intention to weary the Committee, but I think that it is important to state this further condition:
The Government intend to examine each possible purchaser and to assure themselves that there is no danger of the establishment of a monopoly even in a particular branch of the work at present carried out by S. G. Brown.
Another point, which all hon. Members have heard, was the determination that the company should not, either now or in the foreseeable future, fall under foreign control.

Mr. Diamond: The hon. Gentleman said that the company could not be dealt with on the basis of what he called a chartered accountant's valuation because of the various conditions he obtained. There are two answers to that—first, I have not heard a single condition which would prejudice the purchase price, and, secondly, the Government's case is that this is based on the certificate of a most eminent firm of chartered accountants called Messrs. Thomson McLintock & Co.

Mr. McCann: Did the agreement contain any reference to the recent statement by the Civil Lord that the Admiralty would assure itself that the sale would not damage or prejudice the existing arrangements between S. G. Brown, Ltd., and the Bosch Arma Corporation, because every other firm engaged in this competitive field has an American tie-up and would be a competitor to the Bosch Arma Corporation?

Mr. Farey-Jones: I see the point. I referred to it in the conditions I read out and I intend to refer to the point shortly.
I assure the hon. Member for Gloucester from my long experience—perhaps


my experience is as long as his—that, if I were taking over any firm under the conditions I have read out, I would think very long and seriously before I paid the price which I congratulate the Admiralty on having achieved. I warmly congratulate the Admiralty, because I think that it has carried out a marvellous negotiation.
I said that I was from the beginning interested in the continued employment of my people, as I called them, just as the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne would be interested in his. I have that guarantee, but I have still more.

Mr. S. Silverman: Mr. S. Silverman rose—

Mr. Farey-Jones: Perhaps the hon. Member would allow me to make this point. I have still more, because who in Great Britain could better fulfil those obligations than the de Havilland Aircraft Company, a company of which everyone on both sides ought to be, and I am sure is, proud? The story of the contribution this company is making not only to the development of aviation in this country, but in the development of the type of aviation we are bound to use in the future in the exploration of outer space, is not yet half told.

Mr. Silverman: The hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Farey-Jones) makes his case fairly, and lucidly. He has said that all that he was really interested in was the future of the workers employed in the industry as defined in the conditions he read out. That is a very laudable and admirable concern. Perhaps he will tell me which of those conditions they did not have already and which of them would not have been safe if the company had not been sold.

Mr. Farey-Jones: Yes. That is quite easy to answer. The hon. Member can check it by going to the management of S. G. Brown. Sixty-five per cent. of the external sales of S. G. Brown were in the commercial market and were not directly sent either to the Admiralty or to the Navy. They remained that way, and the company was making even more sales that way. It is not the duty of any Government Department to run a commercial undertaking for the Armed Services.
The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that the possibility of the continuance of those conditions was

dependent on whether the Admiralty would continue to support and underwrite the money for S. G. Brown, a question on which the House of Commons came to the very opposite conclusion. That is why I stand where I do and why I have reiterated the beliefs which I hold. I do not believe that the Government should be in any business in any industry, because wherever it applies there is automatically a diminution of personal responsibility and little by little the industry goes down until it becomes a drag on the nation as a whole.

Mr. Silverman: My hon. Friends and I can follow the hon. Gentleman if he is saying that, as the Government or the House of Commons had decided to sell the concern, there was nothing he could do about it except make the best of it, and that is what he has been doing. However, that is not a reason for supporting the Government in reaching that decision.

Mr. Farey-Jones: That might not be a reason for supporting the Government in the hon. Gentleman's mind.

Mr. Silverman: Or in the mind of the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Farey-Jones).

Mr. Farey-Jones: In my mind it certainly is, because I am a dyed-in-the-wool Conservative. I believe that the less the Government interfere in the ordinary running of any business the better it is for mankind. I was saying how much better these conditions could have been fulfilled.

Mr. J. T. Price: Mr. J. T. Price (Westhoughton)  rose—

Mr. Farey-Jones: I implore the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) to listen to what I am about to say.

Mr. Price: If the hon. Member for Watford gives way I shall be able to make my point in a more orderly fashion than I was making it. If that is the real extent of his belief in the political life of this country, why does he not become perfectly rational and advise Her Majesty's Government to sell the Post Office next week and close down British Overseas Airways Corporation, British European Airways and the Atomic Energy Authority? That would be the logical


conclusion. It is quite irrational for the hon. Member to say what he is saying as a serious contribution to a debate in the House of Commons.

Mr. Farey-Jones: The hon. Gentleman may be surprised to know that I would gladly put the Post Office in private hands tomorrow. I would love to put the telephone service in private hands, and see what happens—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why don't you?"] I am not yet entrusted with the task.
To return to the point that I was making, what better company could we have then than the de Havilland company to take charge of this stage of this company's affairs—

Mr. Norman Dodds: But it wants public money.

Mr. Farey-Jones: Let the hon. Gentleman wait a moment.
I was one of the very earliest customers of the de Havilland Aircraft Company, about thirty years ago. I have seen that company grow from its very tiny beginnings—led by Captain Geoffrey de Havilland, whose name will remain forever in the minds of people who love aviation—to what it is doing now. It has factories employing thousands of people in this country, in Canada, in New Zealand, in Australia and countless places all over the British Commonwealth. If ever a company was peerless in the acceptance and fulfilment of its obligations, it is this one. I have yet to hear of a better. That is why I would rely on the word given on behalf of that company more than I would on any law argued by chartered accountants or legal luminaries from now till Christmas.
In addition to that, the company has, in its British Arma division—let us be quite blunt about it—a company peerless in the field of astronomical, aeronautical and general engineering research.
I was very distressed to hear from certain sections of the Opposition this kind of doubt, this creation of some kind of an element of fear in the participation in British industry of American firms. Here I should like to say something to hon. Members opposite who represent divisions in the North-East. Two or three years ago, I was instrumental, in a way, in getting a very large American company—in its own sphere.

the leader in the world—to take a minority holding, with British partners—and those British partners are known all over Northumberland, Durham and Yorkshire—in the creation of a factory, new of its kind, not far from Newcastle.
Today, that factory is the finest of its type in the world, and will, over the next fifteen or twenty years, be a godsend to British industry—but the American minority capital has never for one moment created even a minor rift in the lute. We go forward happily and peacefully, and in faith together, and I am quite sure that that is what will happen in the case of S. G. Brown, de Havilland and the Bosch Arma factory.
I would therefore say to any member of the Opposition: "Do not create any sense of fear that cannot be justified in the light of all the circumstances"—

Mr. Charles Grey: Can the hon. Gentleman name the firm in Newcastle to which he refers?

Mr. Farey-Jones: No. If I did, I would be cutting across Parliamentary decency or something like that. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to know, I will tell him privately.
To the hon. Member for Gloucester, I must say that I appreciate that accountants have a certain value in a well-organised society, and the fact that I personally regard them as barnacles on the keel of commerce has nothing to do with it. Modern business is far more a matter of judgment. It is not a question of whether one is getting one's pound of flesh, neither a little above nor a little below, but whether one is creating an organisation with the team spirit—not a series of accidents going somewhere to happen, like the Opposition Front Bench, but an organisation able to carry out a job that the world wants it to do.
There is something far greater in the issue involved in this negotiation, and I beg the Committee to listen to these last few sentences. I have recently completed a very lengthy journey on the other side of the Atlantic, during which I have seen and examined for myself the scientific conclusions, the results of the spending of literally billions of dollars in research on all kinds of efforts—and in some of those kinds of efforts the firm of S. G. Brown will have to play


a leading part on this country's behalf in the future.
Therefore, behind this negotiation, behind this sale, are matters of very deep significance. So deep are these matters that, even though the then hon. Member for Epping made certain statements in 1937, I shall make similar statements about the position in the world today. Against the sombre background of the reality of the world as it is today one can only deduce certain specific necessities. Without a new philosophy, a new approach, it will be exceedingly difficult for the free world to survive. That is not said in any party political spirit. Neither this country nor America—nor America—nor all the countries of the free world can afford the endless dissipation of their resources in separate schemes of research and development.
On an international scale, we must have complete political, scientific, strategic and economic integration—and the operative word is "integration". That must be the key word of our work for the next ten years because, at the very best, the free world has to face an economic life-and-death struggle of paramount, tragic importance. Already we are losing the battle for the entire Continent of Africa, with all that that means, and with all the responsibility it puts on every Member of the House of Commons. At its worst, the other side of the picture warns us of the awful danger that hangs over the entire human race.
The type of arrangement which the Admiralty has succeeded in producing in relation to S. G. Brown is one that I think should be followed in all the other industries, and particularly those concerned with defence, with the air, with the exploration of outer space, and with the provision of equipment for our Armed Forces. On both sides of the Committee all honest men know perfectly well that this country cannot afford the continuance of crippling taxation and we have somehow or other to go into a common pool, both financially and strategically, with our allies and with the United States.
Why cannot we build under licence in this country products which are the result of billions of dollars worth of research in the United States and the western world, and why cannot the Americans do likewise by building in

the United States the masterly products of companies in this country like Decca which provides on the oceans of the world the finest safety equipment known to mankind? Those are the issues.

Mr. McCann: Those are not really the issues involved. We have followed the hon. Gentleman with tremendous interest in his tour of the world, and I do not think anyone on either side will disagree with the peroration which he has just delivered, but surely the issue is really this. Can a contract tie down the company—the hon. Gentleman used the word "integration"—and ensure that S. G. Brown will be kept open and not be absorbed into the great empire of Bosch Arma and de Havilland? In other words, will this so-called small firm be absorbed, and will the work-people be offered employment somewhere else where it will be impossible to take full advantage of their skills? Also, what did the hon. Gentleman do during the one year when the profits shrank from £180,000 to £6,000?

Mr. Farey-Jones: I have already told the Committee what I did about it during that period. I will try to answer the hon. Gentleman in this way. I cannot speak for all the lawyers in Christendom, but, to the best of my knowledge and belief, there has never yet been a contract signed in any part of the world in which some adroit lawyer could not find a flaw. In matters of this kind, it is a question of faith. My father never signed a contract in his life. He gave his word and he never broke it. That is the kind of thing, good faith, which we must create internationally.
Between ourselves and the United States, a momentous decision has to be reached. As I was saying, I want to see an organisation, a composite organisation, if one likes to call it that, developing outer space with the results of American research, with participation by Australia and Canada, by de Havilland, S. G. Brown, and many other companies. Unless we can go into the future free from suspicion and the dread of American participation in our industry, to which reference has been made from the Opposition Front Bench this afternoon, we shall never succeed. We participate far more in American industry than hon. Members generally realise.
We are told that Queen Mary, the lady who was known as Bloody Mary, said that when she died the name "Calais" would be found imprinted on her heart. I am quite sure that, when the present Member for Watford dies, there will be written on his heart the name S. G. Brown. I say to all the people now working in S. G. Brown that they must not listen to the prophets of gloom. They are at the beginning of something which is as much in their hands as their patriotism was during the years of war. The people of Watford, a magnificent constituency, whether they agree or disagree with what one advocates, have a sense of fair play, and they are wonderful sportsmen. I am quite convinced that they will rise to the inspiring opportunity which is theirs today.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Mendelson: I always listen with respect to the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Farey-Jones) when he speaks of his interest in the economic well-being of his constituents. We all know that he is sincere in what he says and we appreciate his anxiety for them. He will agree at once, I am sure, that the particular anxieties he has suffered during the last twelve months were produced by his right hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench. It was their action which started it all and, in fact, it was the initiative taken by the Government which brought on the debate last year.
When the hon. Gentleman tells us what he told his constituents just before the election, he should take the matter further. He gave us some nice general principles, but it seemed to me that what he said to his constituents amounted to no more than, "I am against sin". That is not an answer to the question which was put to him. He was asked what he said to his constituents about the position of this particular firm, and he never told the Committee what he said about that.

Mr. Farey-Jones: I told them quite bluntly. During the election campaign, I went into the factory and I told them that I was all in favour of the sale of S. G. Brown. Some of them gave me an exceedingly rough ride. Later, when the Prime Minister made his great speech—

The Temporary Chairman (Dr. Horace King): Order. I hope that hon. Members will keep their interventions brief. I am trying to give as many hon. Members as possible an opportunity to take part in the debate.

Mr. Mendelson: I was rather disturbed to hear one hon. Member who is not here at the moment—I do not complain; we cannot all be here all the time—criticise the Opposition for probing into the details of the scheme the Government are putting forward. It is quite wrong to assume that the House of Commons has not a duty to probe very carefully into any such sale which the Government may undertake. We have been told many times that the electorate has made certain decisions. Several interpretations have been put upon that which are not borne out at all, but the Government's case is that they have decided, on doctrinaire grounds, that they wish to get rid of a number of things which belong to the nation. Therefore, the least that the House of Commons can do is to probe very deeply the way they are doing it.
There are certain questions which should be answered before the debate concludes, and those questions are the reason which led us to the view that it was important to debate this matter. We have not yet received any answer to the very important question about how the company has been directed during the two years preceding the offer of sale. The Civil Lord should, I think, clarify that matter for the Committee and the country and explain why there has not been an all-out active selling campaign to improve the position of the company during the two years before the offer of sale was made. Whatever decision the Government might take about dates, it was surely in the best interest of the nation, if the company was to be sold, to make quite sure that it was encouraged to obtain as many orders as possible both at home and abroad and to do the best it could to improve the position in the balance sheet against the time when the offer of sale came.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: It ought to go out from the Committee that the insinuation made earlier is absolutely untrue. Some hon. Members have suggested that the salesmen were instructed not to get


orders. I have it from the directors of the company that this is absolutely untrue and that their salesmen are very anxious to work to get orders. It may be that in some particular instance they might have said, "Do not promise delivery within the next few weeks or months", but they are most anxious to get orders and they have been working flat out to get them during the intervening period.

Mr. Mendelson: That still leaves the point that, for several months, for reasons indicated by the hon. Member for Watford, because there was a holdup and a waiting period which happened to coincide with the two years preceding the offer for sale, the company was not in the best selling position. Therefore, the charge that the company was influenced by doctrinaire issues is surely made out and, in that situation, when there was a hold-up, it could not put its best foot forward. The best thing to have done would have been to keep quiet about it and, as I say, carry on and wait for a more favourable moment to come forward with the offer of sale. That is sound commercial common sense.
The next point concerns the interests of the workers. Proper tributes have been paid on all sides to the people who worked this remarkable partnership, but we have not yet heard a full declaration of intention from the Government. We have not yet been told about what guarantees they have received from the new joint owners of the company, and we have not yet heard about safeguards for the particular skills which a great many of the work people in the firm have developed over the years. It is all very well to say that there will be continuity of employment. Anyone who knows anything about industry knows that continuity of employment in a general sense often ends in the punishment of those who develop a particular skill over the years. What we need to hear in much more precise detail is how in the negotiations with the new owners the interests of the employees have been safeguarded. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will make that point clear to all the people concerned.
Finally, I turn to what I consider is a very important point. It has been slurred over so far. To encourage a company to use more capital is often decisive,

and it affects the long-term plans of people directing and controlling the affairs of the company. We have not been told whether, concerning an enterprise which needed a great deal of additional capital to develop its industrial and scientific potential, a long-term decision has been taken by the Government which contradicted any intention to allow the company to do the best it could. This is a more important point than saying that money was made available which could be drawn on. Was it as a result of the decision on the part of the Government to sell back this firm to private enterprise that the proper encouragement was not given to the company to go ahead and use what potential capital it might have?
I have an informal understanding with another hon. Member who wants to speak and, therefore, I have confined myself to those points. They are practical points, and I hope that they will be replied to by the President of the Board of Trade.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. Dudley Williams: I, too, will have to speak rather rapidly, because I have an understanding with a right hon. Member opposite on when he wishes to start his speech.
I should like first, to refer to the remarks of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond). I found his suggestion that there was great danger in this transaction of control of the company eventually passing into United States' hands rather extraordinary. We have been told by a responsible Minister that it has been agreed between the de Havilland concern and the Government that there will be no transfer of the shares to foreign hands without the agreement of the Government. If it is not possible to make an agreement with a company as responsible as de Havilland, I do not see how it is ever possible to make an agreement with anyone. I do not think that there is any doubt that the agreement will be honoured.
I should now like to refer to one or two points made by the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale). He referred to the increase in capital investment in this country by United States firms. He referred to a publication which disclosed that there were 650 companies or subsidiaries in this country owned by United States interests. I


do not think that there is anything wrong in that. I am informed by responsible people in the City that the amount of capital people in this country have invested in the United States is roughly equal to that invested in the United Kingdom by citizens of the United States. As we are about one-third of the size of the United States, I should not have thought that it would be to our advantage to suggest that this movement should be discouraged.
For months the Opposition have been attacking the Government in the House and, I believe, outside, saying that if we do not have a more realistic approach to the problems of the European Common Market we shall find the Americans investing in the Common Market. Here we have an encouragement to a United States company to invest in the United Kingdom. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite cannot have it both ways. Either they want us to attract investment from the United States or they do not. They have been saying for a very long time that we are in danger of losing it to the European Common Market.
I do not think that what we have heard today has been anything more than shadow boxing. The real criticism of hon. Members opposite to this proposal to dispose of this firm stems from the fact that they are Socialists. This was said by the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) in the debate last year. He said that the people in this factory believed in their work as an experiment in Socialism. I do not think that they believe in Socialism any longer. My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Farey-Jones) was returned at the last General Election with a majority which showed a swing to him that was greater than the national swing to the Conservative Party. I think that we should be grateful for the discussions which have taken place in this House for enabling the electorate to do that.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Harold Wilson: In one sense this has been a continuation of yesterday's debate and in another sense a continuation of the debate that we had a year ago. The issues are very similar to those which we were discussing yesterday, namely, the pillaging of

national assets for the benefit of a relatively small group.
It may be said that this is a much smaller act of vandalism than that which we were debating yesterday, but in certain aspects it is even worse, because this is—and there can be no doubt about it—an asset built up by State management and by the willing co-operation of workers who were conscious that they were working for the State and not for private shareholders. This is a valuable asset not only in financial terms. Under public ownership it has developed a product which the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Farey-Jones) himself last year described as a world beater.
The speech of the Civil Lord was extraordinary in many ways. First, he referred to the timing of the announcement. He said, "We timed it in the middle of the Recess to avoid unsettling the workers. We thought that it would please them". If the Government had really been considering what would please the workers best, they would have scrapped the whole programme for selling this firm.
The hon. Member went on with one of the most fantastic arguments that I have ever heard. He gave a list of reasons why the Government were doing this. He said that a Government Department should not hold a limited liability company operating on a commercial basis. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was speaking for the whole Government, but it transpires that we have a new system whereby someone gets up at the Dispatch Box and speaks only for the Admiralty, as though it were a separate sovereign State with a separate sovereign Government. I should have thought that when a Minister says, "No Government ought to do this", he was speaking for the whole Government.
Presumably, the hon. Gentleman was anticipating the announcement that the Government propose to sell Short Bros., which would be a threat to the problem of full employment in Northern Ireland. This raises questions about their intentions in relation to their holding in the British Petroleum Company, first taken by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill). I have never heard the suggestion that the Government ought to have been getting rid of their shares in the Suez Canal Company. That


was done for them in another way. But this new ideology proclaimed by the Civil Lord seems to me to raise some big questions which we shall have to probe.
The other point with which the Civil Lord tried to deal referred to price. A year ago, the eminent industrialist the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), after a very elaborate calculation, said that he thought that this firm was worth between £1,500,000 and £2 million. But we find the whole business disposed of for a very much smaller figure, and I thought that the Civil Lord was very perfunctory in justifying the figure accepted. It is bound to lend support to the suspicion mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee), when he asked whether the market had been rigged by letting the firm run down.
We were glad to have the assurance from the Civil Lord that neither the directors of the firm, nor anyone else, have never given instructions to the salesmen when in Europe to abstain from accepting new orders. But nothing has been said about the other allegations that this firm has been prevented from expanding as rapidly as it might have done. We have been told that it was starved of capital and did not have enough capital to hold the necessary stocks of very costly components to enable it to expand production. This, combined with the slump in the shipping industry last year, has apparently led to a falling-off in profits and activity.
I now turn to a serious aspect of this affair, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton. The consortium—the buyers—are, as to 49 per cent. of the capital, American. It is not merely that this is a powerful corporation—the Bosch Arma Corporation—but in terms of the "know-how" of this specialised kind of work which the American management will bring to the transaction, and in terms of the control, which, de facto, if not de jure, they will have, it will, I think, mean at the very least the loss of valuable "know-how" so far as this country is concerned, because Bosch Arma will be sending home any ideas it gets from this firm. It means the subordination of this project to American interests.
The Civil Lord worried all of us on this side when he said that the Government had no intention at present—at present—of varying the requirement that the British company must have a majority holding. That is a very frightening remark. Of course, the Government have the last word, and they could always stop it, as I think the President of the Board of Trade will agree, not merely under the terms of the agreement, but probably under the Exchange Control Act. What worries us is not their power to do it, but their willingness to insist that it should remain in British hands.
Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams), have said that there is a great deal of British investment going on in the United States, but I wonder whether any hon. Gentleman opposite can tell us the name of one American defence industry in which a British firm has got control to anything like the extent of 49 per cent. Can any hon. Gentleman tell us of any American firm in which a British firm has a substantial interest of that kind, and particularly as high as 49 per cent.? The American Government would not for a moment contemplate a British firm coming into a vital defence industry of this kind, and there is no reason why we should be doing it.
It is a fantastic argument which the Government are putting up. We know that the Civil Lord is speaking only for the Admiralty, but the President of the Board of Trade, presumably, will be speaking for the whole Government. What underlines this is that, because of their ideological views, or ideological spite, if we like to call it that, they say that it is wrong for the British people to own this firm, but that it is all right for an American one, to a substantial extent at least, to own it. This is one more example of a fact which I first underlined in this House four years ago. The Conservative Party preaches patriotism through its lips, but when private profit is involved its patriotism melts like the snows of yesteryear.
We had it four years ago with the Trinidad oil sell-out, when the Prime Minister defended this sort of behaviour. We had it with the refusal of the Government last year to interfere with Wall Street interests buying up shares, even to the point of a controlling interest, in


important British firms. The only time when the Government stood firm was when American interests tried to take over the Angostura Bitters producers. They were very firm about that, and I commend them for their action. The argument is that the Americans could have our oil, they could have our vital defence firms, but our "gin and bitters"—never.
There is another issue raised by this debate. Here we are denationalising a part—a small part, it is true, but a vital part—of our defence industries, and we are denationalising this part at a time when all the arguments of recent events should be pushing us the other way—not to denationalise defence industries, but to extend our control over them. Hon. Members, instead of riding their doctrinaire hobby horses, should be addressing themselves to the very real problem of the relations between the Government and the defence industries.
There was a time when, with the defence industries, it was simply a question of placing a contract, whether for a gun, a tank, a shell or a ship. Contract procedure was followed, and if the cost outran the estimate the Public Accounts Committee produced a blistering report and someone was called to account. Today, defence contracts are not for identifiable pieces of military hardware; they are cost-plus contracts vaguely aimed at achieving a supersonic or stratospheric objective, and almost unlimited money is voted to produce something at the end of the year or in five or ten years. Being on cost-plus, there can be very little control of expenditure and no check on the success of the research or production programme.
So we have millions, hundreds of millions of pounds, spent, vastly exceeding the original approved Estimates—and this matter has already been raised in the House—with all too little to show for it, in one cost-plus defence contract after another. Indeed, I would doubt whether some of these projects, initiated as they were in Government research establishments, have made anything like the same progress under private hands that they did under direct Government control.
In any case, I put this to hon. Members opposite who are concerned about the level and growth of public expendi-

ture. It is no good complaining about candle ends, in the good old Gladstonian fashion, or proposing cuts in the social services when tens or hundreds of millions of pounds are spent on generous cost-plus defence contracts with no real check on what is produced at the end of the day. To protect the taxpayer, there is everything to be said for nationalising the defence industries, not, as in the case we are debating today, for denationalising part of them.
What did the Government put before us? I know that the Civil Lord will not understand this argument, because he speaks only for the Admiralty, but some of these arguments affect the Government as a whole, which he will not appreciate. The Government put before us a scheme to sell off, partly to American interests, partly to de Havillands, an important public asset. There is no argument about that. I have dealt with the American aspect, as did my hon. Friend, but what about de Havillands?
A year ago, referring to S. G. Brown, Ltd., the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in words which must have rumbled ominously through the Royal dockyards, said:
I certainly do not think that because a firm is expanding or well managed, that justifies it remaining in public ownership."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th June, 1959; Vol. 607, c. 244.]
On that argument, we would be denationalising a much wider range than we are. The whole argument a year ago was on the merits of this firm being run by private enterprise. Last night, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said, with great frankness:
The plain answer is that as a party we believe that industry should look for its finance to the private investor, who takes the risk and collects the rewards or bears the losses."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1960; Vol. 625, c. 1093.]
This is the good old Tory philosophy put forward so clearly and frankly by the right hon. Gentleman last night.
Does that high-sounding phrase really apply to de Havillands? Do de Havillands take the risk and bear the losses of its various enterprises? Of course not. The Minister of Aviation, who has been subsidising the firm in private for years with cost-plus contracts, has just come along with proposals for open subsidies from the public purse for aircraft constructors. In other words, de Havillands will now be subsidised twice over,


first, from a succession of cost-plus contracts, on which it is impossible to lose money, and, secondly, by these more open subsidies now coming from public funds via the Ministry of Aviation. If S. G. Brown makes profits after the sale, de Havillands collect. If it makes losses, any loss which de Havillands has to bear as its share will be more than made up by payments from the Minister of Aviation's "Special Aircraft Industry National Assistance Board."
Of course, behind all the debate and the argument, the real reason for this decision, as yesterday, is that this is Toryism. It is the old cloven hoof coming out again. Here is a successful piece of public enterprise, so it has to be handed over to the money-makers. Nothing that has been said today, least of all by the Civil Lord, shakes the view I expressed a year ago, when we last debated the question, that the motive here in one word is loot, as it was the motive yesterday.
The Chancellor of the Duchy last night made no bones about it in the quotation which I have just given. Frankly, I am amazed that the right hon. Gentleman had the nerve to show his face in such a debate last night. He was the first to hire Mr. Colin Hurry to fight a nationalisation project—indeed, the greatest act of public ownership of the lot—the National Health Service, which, however much they may erode it, the Government have not dared to denationalise. Perhaps it is because there is no money in it, though there is plenty of money to be made out of it; but that is made by the pharmaceutical suppliers. Hon. Members opposite owe a lot to Mr. Hurry. Some of them might not have been here but for his activities, although I should think that he himself made quite a bit out of it. I hope, however, that hon. Members opposite will recognise that he learnt his job when he was a lackey of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
It is when the Government have an, even for them, unusually bad case to develop that they send for their intelligentsia. Last night, it was the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Tonight, it is the President of the Board of Trade. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster no doubt thought that he was answering the formidable case put

up by my hon. and right hon. Friends in yesterday's debate when he created a diversion about Clause 4 of the Labour Party's constitution. The right hon. Gentleman should not be surprised that, after an election defeat, there are arguments. They are nothing to what the Conservatives had after 1945, and nothing that my hon. Friends have said in the past few months could compare with the statement of a Tory back bencher, in 1946, when he demanded that the Tory Party should change its name, because, he said, the word "Conservative" stank in the nostrils of the electorate. That statement was made by the then hon. Member for Wallasey, who is now Minister of Transport "and Urban Congestion." I have no doubt that a photographer was around even then.
If hon. Members opposite tried to agree on their party objectives, they would not get to first base unless they were really honest. If they were honest about their party's objectives, as we have seen illustrated again by today's debate as well as yesterday's, their own Clause 4 would be to ensure to the landlord, the speculator and the company promoter the full fruits of their labours on the basis of the private exploitation of the means of production, distribution and exchange. We can argue about our Clause 4, but, as between our Clause 4 and that of the party opposite, if hon. Members on the Government side had the guts to enunciate it publicly, as between them there could not be much doubt which is in the national interest.
It is that spirit of private exploitation of the means of production—in this case, a publicly-owned asset—which is underlying the sell-out which we are debating today. It is part and parcel of the philosophy which says that publicly-owned basic industries are to be stunted and made unviable while private enterprise, or private unenterprise, whichever it might be, is encouraged to milk the Exchequer, a philosophy which says that the economy can be endangered by any amount of luxury building, vast office blocks and the rest while roads, education and hospitals are once again to be cut, as we know they will be following the Chancellor's announcement last week. It is a philosophy which says that the take-over tycoon can make a million pounds on a financial manœuvre


and that it does not harm the economy, but which then goes on to say that if the railwaymen were paid a decent wage the whole economy would be wrecked and something must be done about it. That is the philosophy of the party opposite.
What we are debating today is the application of that philosophy to a small but vital firm which, under private ownership, was found to be failing the nation during the war, which, under public ownership, has been built up into a real national asset and which now, to satisfy the dictates of the acquisitive society, has to be handed over to private interests. It is against this application of that philosophy that we shall divide the Committee tonight.
I beg to move, That a sum, not exceeding £9,914,900, be granted for the said service.

6.35 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Reginald Maudling): The debate today has been largely about the affairs of S. G. Brown, Ltd. and the sale of the company to de Havilland and the Bosch Arma group. The principle was debated in the House of Commons almost exactly a year ago. Today we have been mainly concerned with the detailed application of those principles. I say "mainly concerned" because for the last ten minutes or so we have been wandering into wider, rather lusher pastures. I was not quite sure what the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) was trying to do. He seemed to be trying to fight again both the last election and last night's debate. I warn him that this raking over of the embers of old defeats is an unprofitable way of going about things. Certainly the right hon. Gentleman did not gain much from it.
What we are discussing is the action in selling S. G. Brown. When we discussed it a year ago I remember saying that there were three parties mainly concerned. The first is the company and its employees, of whom my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Farey-Jones), who is so closely connected with these things, has spoken so eloquently today. The second party is the Admiralty, and the third is the taxpayer.
I said on the last occasion that in every case benefit will come to the three parties from the sale of the company. That is happening on this occasion. The defence requirements of the Admiralty will be met just as well with the firm in private hands as they were with the firm in Admiralty ownership. The right hon. Gentleman said that all firms working for Defence Departments should be nationalised. Is this, at last, a definite statement of what Clause 4 is all about? In this case it is clear that the Admiralty defence requirements will not suffer in the slightest from the sale of the company. Where the Admiralty will gain is that it will be freed from the substantial sums which it has had to find, and would have to find, out of its voted sums from the House of Commons for the financing of the company. This is a burden which it is right to take off the shoulders of Admiralty finance.
From the point of view of the taxpayer, he has got a good price for the asset, a price that represents a substantial capital profit over the amount of taxpayer's money put into the business. In addition, from the taxpayer's viewpoint it means that no longer will he be called upon to provide further capital requirements for the expansion of the company.
One or two people have asked whether the price is a fair one. I am content to rest on the evidence of the accountants, who are members of an eminent firm of accountants and who have said that the price offered places a fair and reasonable value on the undertaking as a going concern. As the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) knows better than he indicated in his speech, the accountants would not say that solely on the basis of one year's experience. It is on the basis of their full knowledge of the affairs of the company, its assets, its profit record and the forecast of profits made by the directors for the purposes of sale. The Government are quite content to rest on the confirming opinion of this firm of accountants that the price for the company was a fair one. Therefore, the taxpayer has received a fair price for his asset and a price which represents a substantial capital profit over the period of years in which it has been in Government ownership.
To turn to the third party—the company itself and its employees—there can be no doubt that to an unbiased observer, if one can be found, the sale is very much in the interests of everyone who works for S. G. Brown. The company's profit record last year showed quite clearly that trading conditions are getting more difficult. It is not a question of inhibiting the salesmen and telling them not to sell the product. Of course it is not. It is not a question of starving the company of capital, because, with due respect to the hon. Member for Gloucester, a company of this size which has increased its bank overdraft from £180,000 to £430,000 in the course of one year is surely not starved of capital. An increase in bank accommodation of £1 million in one year for a company of this size cannot be regarded as evidence of starvation of capital.
The fact is that the market for the company's products has been becoming more competitive, and particularly the market for marine equipment with the falling off in shipbuilding throughout the world. There is more competition in other ranges that the company produces and there are increasing costs of production which the company has not been able to absorb. All these things led in the last accounting year for which we have figures to a substantial fall in profits, though, as my hon. Friend the Civil Lord said, it is expected that profits will show a substantial recovery to £90,000 or so in the next year.
One or two hon. Members have talked about guaranteeing employment. We must be realistic about this. No one—Government or private employer—can guarantee permanent employment for the people now working at S. G. Brown. The only thing that can provide that employment is the company continuing to produce competitive equipment and selling it at the right prices in a highly competitive market. The only possible guarantee of employment to the people in this firm is what the firm produces. It is the strength of the firm as a commercial unit that matters to them, and it is the only thing that matters.
In three respects the company's strength will be greatly enhanced by the sale to de Havilland and Bosch Arma. In the first place, the company will have access to risk capital from a very large

source of capital, from this large group which is concerned. We on this side of the Committee still hold the view that the provision of risk capital for commercial ventures is a proper function of private enterprise and not of public enterprise.

Mr. G. A. Pargiter: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the capital of a firm, resting as it does on Government security, is risk capital?

Mr. Maudling: I say that money provided for the expansion of S. G. Brown is risk capital. It could not be anything else. It is equity capital and therefore should come from private sources.

Mr. Lee: Colvilles?

Mr. Maudling: The Colvilles loan is not an equity loan, and that is the point.
The second thing that will help the company will be the tie-up with a large sales organisation. The linking with de Havilland and other associates will provide a much bigger selling organisation than this company on its own could possibly have. As the company's products become more and more commercial products, so the problems of selling throughout the world will become more serious. This link-up will certainly provide a much better sales outlet for S. G. Brown's products.
The link-up with Bosch Arma will also give the company contact with a firm which is making a complementary set of products in the same range as S. G. Brown, and this is very important. With the development of modern industry and increasing specialisation in business, no firm can produce the whole range of products. A link-up of this kind where one firm is producing one part of the range and another firm is producing another part is of great value to both companies.
There is a good case for further working arrangements between British and American firms engaged in the production of scientific and precision equipment. On a visit to California I saw opportunities for selling British components to American manufacturers just as there are opportunities for the selling of American components to British manufacturers. These link-ups would be bound to bring greater strength to the firms concerned and the two combined


would have a greater commercial standing than they could have had individually.

Mr. Loughlin: The argument now being advanced of the linking up of a small firm with a large sales organisation and of co-operation with each other envisages the desirability of all small firms becoming part of a large organisation. Is the right hon. Gentleman now arguing that the Government want to see vertical monopolies in all industries?

Mr. Maudling: That point was made earlier, but it is not a good one. What I am saying is not that small firms should be absorbed but that working arrangements made between firms, small or large, in this business are good for all the firms concerned. In this case it takes the form of absorption. It need not take that form, but such working arrangements are a good thing.
Another important point is the access provided for S. G. Brown to the very large research and development facilities of Bosch Arma. S. G. Brown has done a fine job of research and development and is still doing it, but in this respect its strength in personnel is 20 compared with Bosch Arma's 1,000 to 1,200. It cannot but be to the advantage of Brown's to have this link-up with this large American business which has such enormous research and development resources.
There can be no doubt that the firm of S. G. Brown will prosper more under the ownership of de Havilland and Bosch Arma than it could possibly do in the continuing ownership of the Admiralty. The reason for disposing of it is that the firm will do better, and the people employed in it will do better, and from the point of view of the Admiralty and the taxpayer this deal will provide a satisfactory arrangement.
Hon. Members raised several other points. The question of the possibility of monopoly has been raised, and I think reference was made to this in the debate a year ago. In fact, this sale, so far from encouraging it, will prevent monopoly by giving added strength to the competitors of the Sperry Company, which is the firm in the strongest position in this field. There was a good deal of discussion about American control and investment. I agree very strongly with

my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) who spoke about the cross-fertilisation of capital. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member cannot understand a point like that, he should not take part in these discussions.
Nothing but good can come of the investment of British capital and know-how in America and the investment of American capital and know-how in Britain. It is a fact, as my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) said, that, roughly speaking, the balance is about equal. As far as we can judge, the amount of American capital invested in this country is about the same as the amount of British capital invested in the United States. Surely, this is an excellent thing for both sides and the more it goes on the better we shall be pleased.
I am afraid that more speeches of the type delivered by the right hon. Member for Huyton will do a great deal to discourage investment in this country. We ought to know where we stand on this with the party opposite. Does it or does it not want to see American firms coming here and setting up in business? Did they want American capital invested, for example, in Scotland?

Mr. H. Wilson: Yes, and we were more successful than the right hon. Gentleman in getting it here, especially in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman will find the full answer to his question if he will do me the courtesy of reading a speech which I made on 30th June last year when I answered these points very fully. I still maintain, and I am sure that most hon. Members on both sides of the House, whatever our views about attracting American investment and "know-how" into this country, will maintain that we deprecate the idea of a firm in this country passing into American control even to the extent of a 49 per cent. holding.

Mr. Maudling: The right hon. Gentleman just dug himself out of that in time. If he says that an American firm should not have a 49 per cent. holding in a company in this country, how can he say that he is welcoming American investment? I agree that a good case might be made out if there were a question of American control of a vital defence industry, but that is not the case here.


There is clear provision that the American capital holding will be less than 50 per cent., and there is an undertaking from de Havilland that it will not alter the articles of association. I agree that it is not legally binding, but it is an undertaking from the company which the Government gladly accept.
We believe that we should accept undertakings of this kind. We believe it is impossible for government in this country to be carried on unless one can have dealings of this kind with important British industries. Therefore, the undertaking by de Havilland not to alter the articles of association without Government agreement is one which we fully accept, and, though it is not legally binding, we believe that in practice it will be entirely binding.

Mr. Diamond: If the Civil Lord had said to begin with that it was not legally binding we should have been saved all this argument.

Mr. Maudling: As far as I can make out, the time has been taken up by the hon. Gentleman arguing with himself on this point. Anyway, the position about this is perfectly clear at the present moment.
As I said, the complaints that have been made about the transaction on the practical side are, first of all, the possibility of creating a monopoly, which I say will not take place, and, secondly, the possibility of American control, which, again, will not take place because the undertaking, which is now accepted by the hon. Member, will prevent that from happening.

Therefore, I find it difficult to see what shred of case the Opposition have left against the action of the Government in selling the company. They have not been able to provide any argument against the terms on which the company has been sold. They have produced some vague stories, which have been completely demolished, about the deliberate holding back of the company by the Government. Those stories did not need much demolition, because the Government would not solemnly set about deliberately depressing the value of the company in order to sell it for less money than could otherwise be got. That sort of argument might go at a street corner during a by-election but it is not worthy of the Opposition Front Bench in the House of Commons.

The fact is that the Labour Party has decided to make this another occasion for one of its ritual war dances in which it indulges every now and then. The only difference between this debate and a war dance is that a war dance stimulates enthusiasm for attacking the enemy whereas this type of debate reduces the enthusiasm for attacking one another.

Certainly in terms of a party battle, we have enjoyed the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman. We note that, like his hon. Friends, he has produced no arguments on the substance of the case, and we are therefore confident that the Opposition's arguments will be rejected by the Committee.

Question put, That a sum, not exceeding £9,914,900, be granted for the said Service:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 225, Noes 322.

It being after Seven o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair, further Proceeding standing postponed until after the consideration of Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for Taking Private Business).

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

OLDHAM CORPORATION BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

7.4 p.m.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: I rise to draw attention to the school agreements Clause in this Bill, because I feel that there are many cogent arguments that the Select Committee which will eventually deal with the Bill should take into account. I do not intend to oppose the Second Reading, but merely to draw attention to this Clause which, in my view, ought not to be passed in any Private Bill.

Mr. Frederic Harris: The hon. Gentleman opposed the Croydon Corporation Act as a whole for that reason. Why is he not opposing this Bill as a whole?

Mr. Hayman: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient he will hear my reasons.
I feel that it is desirable that this question should again be discussed on the Floor of the House because at no time, either during the passage of the Education Act, 1944, or during the passage of the three subsequent Miscellaneous Provisions Acts, or at any other time, has a Minister of the Crown come to the House to ask for the powers which are now sought in this Clause, and which, I agree, have been conferred by other Private Bills. In some cases, a similar Clause has been disallowed.
The position about this kind of penalty Clause is that in days gone by private schools proprietors were able to go to the courts to claim damages if a parent broke an agreement to keep a child at school for a subsequent term or subsequent year, according to the terms of the agreement entered into. Later, that kind

of power was conferred on the local education authorities, who were providing secondary education, mainly in the grammar schools. There was an element of damages and local authorities could go to the county courts and get redress in that way.
It so happens—as many who have listened to this kind of debate before will know—that I was a district education officer before coming to the House, and it was my job to deal with this kind of agreement, and Clause. It was my duty to see that a child whose parents refused to sign an agreement of this kind was refused entry into grammar school. It has been argued that a parent who will do such a thing is the worst type of parent, but I can assure the House that that is not so.
Very often, in the 1930s, a father who had, perhaps, been unemployed, or who might be unemployed, feared to enter into a binding agreement which would involve him in a penalty in five years' time. The parent who was careless would not bother about entering into any agreement. He would sign and that was the end of it. I have constituents today, however, who were denied a secondary education by me because I had to enforce the regulations of my local education authority.
I am not condemning the authority. This was the general thing that was done in those days. Today, however, there is a totally different position. The Education Act, 1944, abolished school fees altogether, so that there can be no question of a local education authority being involved in damages if a child is withdrawn from school before a specified time. Indeed, the whole argument in favour of the Clause is that it is a kind of deterrent to dissuade parents from taking their children away from school before the end of their children's school life.
An education authority is now required by Section 8 of the 1944 Act to provide secondary education suited to the age, ability and aptitude of the child. There is no reservation from that duty which is laid upon local education authorities by Parliament. The problem of early leaving has, nevertheless, caused a great deal of concern.


When she was Minister of Education, Baroness Horsbrugh referred the question to the Central Advisory Council for Education in England. Two years later, the Council produced its Report, entitled "Early Leaving" and the House will see that that Report was exhaustive. I suggest to the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris) and others who feel somewhat apprehensive about my arguments that they should read at least paragraphs 57 to 62 of that Report which canvasses all the arguments involved. The Council heard a great deal of evidence and took two years to produce its Report.
In the end, the Council's recommendation, in paragraph 185, was:
… we … do not feel able to recommend … the general adoption of school-life agreements. …
In paragraph 57 it said:
… the power to enforce such agreements became a matter of legal doubt. The point has never been tested in the High Court. …
By this Bill a local education authority is asking Parliament for powers which have never been sought by any Minister of the Crown on the Floor of the House and for something which has never been tested in the High Court. Paragraph 34 of the Report said:
During the five to seven years of the grammar school course a large number of pupils have shifted their position in academic order.
That is perfectly obvious to anybody who has had anything to do with schools. In one of his first speeches in the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Mahon), in 1956, gave the history of some children in Bootle from the time they entered school until the time they completed the course. He showed that the child who barely scraped in often did brilliantly at the end, while some of those who entered with brilliant records were failures at the end. Anybody who thinks will realise that children are rapidly evolving, spiritually, physically and psychologically, in that time and cannot be expected to remain completely quiescent throughout those formative years.
It is one of the main purposes of my speech to quote from the report of the Minister of Education on the Oldham Corporation Bill. He said:

It is generally thought that such an agreement, under which a penalty is payable without proof of damage, is unenforceable without statutory authority, although there have been decisions to the contrary in County Courts.
Part of my case is that this issue has never been tested in the courts and an ordinary parent cannot fight a local education authority. If a local education authority loses in the lowest court, it will go to the Court of Appeal, and if it loses the appeal, it will go to the House of Lords. What parent can afford to fight an authority as powerful as that? If I were a very wealthy man, I would be prepared to carry such an issue to the full test, but that is not the purpose of my speech and I am merely drawing attention to what the Minister himself said about the Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman also said:
Moreover, there can, of course, be no compulsion on any parent or guardian to enter into such an agreement and refusal to do so would not affect the obligation of the Corporation to provide the pupil with education suitable to his age, ability and aptitude.
I ask the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West to note that until last year or the year before no Minister of Education had ever sent a report to the Private Bill Committee dealing with an opposed Bill. That is an extra element compared with the case of the Croydon Measure in 1956.

Mr. F. Harris: The hon. Member opposed the Croydon Corporation Bill, which was supported by hon. Members and myself on this side of the House Even what he has now said still does not answer my question: why is he not opposing this Bill?

Mr. Hayman: The position has vastly changed, because the Minister of Education has now concluded that he should point out to the Private Bill Committee that this Clause is unenforceable, as a parent's refusal to sign the agreement would not affect the obligation of the Corporation to provide a pupil with education suitable to his age, ability and aptitude.

Mr. Dudley Williams: Will the hon. Member answer my hon. Friend's question? I am informed that it was only six weeks ago that he opposed the Croydon Bill. Why does he not oppose this Bill?

Mr. Hayman: I was thinking of a Bill in 1956, when there was a debate on the subject.
I now come to the Clause itself. It reads:
Any agreement entered into by or on behalf of the Corporation with the parent or guardian of a pupil or intended pupil at any secondary school may make provision for the payment by such parent or guardian to the Corporation of any sum not exceeding ten pounds in the event of the pupil ceasing without the consent of the Corporation to attend such school before the date fixed by such agreement for the pupil to cease such attendance and the Corporation shall be entitled without proof of any actual damage incurred by reason of such pupil ceasing to attend such school to recover from such parent or guardian any sum not exceeding the sum specified in the agreement which the court may think fit to award in all the circumstances of the case.
I am not a lawyer, but that seems to be a vague sort of power to give to a local authority. It does not even state the age to which the child will be required to attend school. It may be 16, 17, or 18, and yet the parent is required to sign the agreement when the child is 11 or, in the case of some authorities, 10. I am glad to say that my own local education authority is sufficiently progressive to give places in grammar schools to children of 10, if they are of exceptional promise.
Clause 123 (2) says:
In this section the expression 'secondary school' means a school as defined by section 114 of the Education Act 1944 in which secondary education as defined by section 8 of the said Act is provided.
I have already referred to that Section. That is the one which makes it obligatory upon the local education authority to provide secondary education suited to the age, ability and aptitude of the child.
Oldham Corporation has circulated a statement, paragraph 12 of which refers to the fact that a few years ago the proportion of early leavers was 40 per cent., but later figures are quoted showing that in 1955 the proportion in Oldham was 26·2 per cent. compared with the national average of 16 per cent., and that in 1959 the figure dropped to 15·1 per cent. for Oldham as against the national average of 10·3 per cent. We therefore have evidence, provided by Oldham Corporation itself, showing that in the last few years this figure has dropped from 40 per cent. to 15 per cent.

The circular goes on to say:
In fact, the figures for Oldham for the years 1955 to 1957 were probably greater than those mentioned because in the case of one school a number of children were admitted other than by the 11-plus examination and precise figures cannot be given.
That emphasises the fact that, a few years ago, the figure was even higher than 40 per cent.
I do not wish to enter into a bitter controversy with the Oldham authorities. Nevertheless, as a House we should take these facts into consideration, and we should ask the Private Bill Committee which will deal with the Clause to take what I have said into account. Let us consider the precedents. There are 30 such cases, but 25 were granted before 1956 and only five have been granted since that date. Some were disallowed either by Opposed Bills Committees or Unopposed Bills Committees before 1956; three were withdrawn and four have been disallowed from and including 1956—and there were more before them. Three have been withdrawn in the last two years.
The party opposite pays much attention to what it calls paper work. I suggest that it should consider the immense amount of paper work involved for some officers of local education authorities in connection with school agreements. The parent cannot legally be compelled to sign. I therefore suggest that it is bad law to enact in Private Bills something which is probably unenforceable in the courts, as a Minister of the Crown has suggested.
A child ought not to be deprived of his moral birthright in any circumstances. It is now his legal birthright, and I hope that when the Private Bill Committee deals with this Clause it will pay special attention to what the Minister has said, and perhaps take into account the few remarks that I have made.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman), but I go a little further than he does. I do not think that this is bluff; what he says about the agreements possibly being unenforceable at present is true. They might well not be enforceable. But let us make no mistake—if Clause 123 is passed they will be enforceable in Oldham. What is laid down


in an Act of Parliament cannot afterwards be decided as doubtful in law. There i3 no question that the Oldham Corporation would be entitled to fine parents who take their children from school. Not only that; they will be entitled to fine parents if the child does not go to school, whether or not the parent has any part in its failure to attend.
The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne is on a very sound and most important point. I am sure that he and I would agree about the importance of children remaining at school.

Mr. Hayman: Yes.

Mr. Bell: I do not think that anyone would disagree with that. But what must be wrong is that a matter of this kind should be dealt with in a few Private Acts. The Bill contains a provision allowing for a penalty. The general rule is that damages cannot be obtained unless somebody has suffered damage. Therefore, although this Clause uses the expression "agreements" and provides for damages for the breach of those agreements, it is in fact a local provision for fining parents.
The hon. Member was at some pains to point out that the statutory duty of an authority under Section 8 of the 1944 Act will be quite undiminished by this provision, as the Minister pointed out, and that is true. But a provision of this sort is not put forward unless there is some intention to make use of it. In practice, what the Corporation means to do, quite plainly, is to refuse a grammar school education to a child who is entitled to it. There is no other way in which the Clause can be used. The Corporation will say to the parents of a child who has won a place in the grammar school stream, "Your child may have passed the 11-plus examination, but he will not go to one of our grammar schools if you do not sign this agreement."
If the Corporation does not say that, the Clause is entirely inoperative. It is bound use the Clause as blackmail; it cannot be used in any other way. If the Corporation says, "Will you sign the agreement? If you do not it will make no difference; your child will go to grammar school just the same," no parent will sign the agreement. The Corporation must intend to say, "If you

do not sign the agreement your child will not go to grammar school". If that were put forward as a general proposition in the form of an Amendment of the 1944 Act the House would reject it on principle.
It is wrong that local authorities should promote Private Bills seeking to introduce an Amendment of the 1944 Act in their own locality—and not merely an Amendment of the Act but of the very basic principle of that Act, namely, the entitlement of a child to be educated according to his capacity and his age. I would have thought that the great achievement of the 1944 Act was that it provided that until the age of 15 every child is entitled, without payment, to education according to his ability.
I should be interested to hear why Oldham thinks that this should not be the case in its area, and that a child who ought to have a grammar school education because he is fit for it is to be denied it because his parents will not sign the agreement.

Mr. J. T. Price: The hon. Member is putting a fair point temperately, as he usually does, but he is not painting the whole picture. If he is looking at this matter from a moral or ethical point of view, that is, the ability or opportunity of the child to have a grammar school education, he must also consider that if in fact children, having passed the test, are admitted to places in the school without any undertaking being given, then are taken from the school before they reach the period for which the contract has been made, there might be a number of other children excluded from the school because there are more successful candidates than places when the selection takes place. I think the hon. Member will be fair enough to agree that what he is proposing would have the effect of keeping other children out, because a child would take a place and not remain for the full time and an injustice would be caused to another child.

Mr. Bell: I see the point the hon. Member has made, but I am afraid it reinforces exactly what I feared. Up to the age of 15 a child must go to school. If he fails to do so, the school attendance officer has the remedy and the parents can be fined under the ordinary law governing school attendance


under the 1944 Act. The only purpose of these agreements is that the child should stay on beyond the compulsory age. What the hon. Member and Oldham Corporation are saying is that if parents will not contract to keep the child at school beyond the statutory age, the child shall not go to the school at all. That would be defeating the object of Parliament in passing the 1944 Act. I think we all look forward to the day when schooling will go on for a longer time, but it is a matter of finding teachers. Oldham and a few other places want to say that up to the age of 15 will not do.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Thirty or more.

Mr. Bell: That does not alter my opposition, which is quite clear and on principle. The law is laid down for the whole country that up to the age of 15 a child shall be educated according to his ability. It is said in Oldham that he shall not be educated according to his ability up to 15 unless his parents undertake that he shall continue to be educated after 15. I think that is wrong, and so importantly wrong that I propose to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill unless I get some assurance from those responsible for it that the Clause will be withdrawn.

7.33 p.m.

Mr. Dudley Williams: I do not want to get involved in the question of education, which has been dealt with adequately by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) and by the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman). I always feel that I suffered very badly from people trying to educate me and I am generally opposed to it.
I want to call the attention of the House to Clause 122, which I think is a monstrous Clause for any local authority to introduce into a Private Bill.
Subsection (1) states:
As from the appointed day a person shall not carry on the business of a hairdresser or barber in the borough on premises occupied by him unless he is registered by the Corporation under this section and the premises are so registered.
I do not think that this is a question for any Private Bill. If the matter is one

which should be dealt with by Parliament at all it should be dealt with in a comprehensive Measure. A very serious penalty is to be imposed on hairdressers under the Clause. I have no personal interest in this except that I have my hair cut. Subsection (5) says:
If any person contravenes any byelaw made under subsection (3) of this section he shall be liable to a fine not exceeding ten pounds and if he is registered the court by which he is convicted may instead of or in addition to imposing a fine order the suspension or cancellation of his registration and of the registration of the premises in which the offence was committed if they are occupied by him.
The hairdresser can also have his registration suspended and be prevented from carrying on his livelihood. Subsection (8) provides:
The occupier of premises registered under this section shall keep a copy of the said bye-laws and of the certificate of registration displayed in the premises and if he fails to do so he shall be liable to a fine not exceeding forty shillings and a daily fine not exceeding ten shillings.
I think that the Oldham Corporation is taking rather a lot on its shoulders, and I do not think that this is a matter which should go into a Private Bill. There was a gentleman called Mr. Sparks who used to sit in this House as the hon. Member for Acton. He tried to promote a Bill called "The Hairdressers Bill" which would impose such restrictions on the activities of hairdressers all over the country. That Bill did not reach the Statute Book. I was not a Member of the House at that time and I do not know what particular line I would have taken on that Bill. I probably would have opposed it for some reason or other, but it is quite monstrous that in Oldham—not the rest of the country—hairdressers should have to be registered.
I want to voice a very strong protest against this monstrous suggestion by the local authorities of Oldham. If the Bill is not amended suitably and this noxious Clause struck out, I certainly shall have to consider whether it would not be desirable for me to vote against the Bill when it comes back to the House.

7.36 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I do not think that the challenge made by my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) and by


the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) ought to go without;3ome answer. Clause 123 is not aimed at keeping any child out of a grammar school. It is aimed at ensuring that the child shall get a grammar school education.
A child entering a grammar school will find that the grammar school course leading to the General Certificate of Education has a minimum requirement of five years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) pointed out, it is a hardship on other children if a parent takes a place for his child in a grammar school without intending that that child shall complete the grammar school course. Further, it is not fair to the parents who keep their children at school in order to complete the course when a child who has not completed the course at 15 years of age leaves the school, goes to an employer and says that he comes from X grammar school.
I regard this matter as very largely academic at present because most of us expect that in a few years the general level of the compulsory school age will have been raised to 16. At that time this grievance and the grievances with which I have previously dealt will disappear. I think that the figures quoted by the Oldham Corporation are sufficient to show that there is an evil in its midst along the two lines which I have indicated. This entitles Oldham to keep the Clause if the Committee which examines the Bill upstairs is prepared to pass it and include it in the Bill.

Mr. Ronald Bell: The right hon. Member said that the object of the Clause is not to deprive a child of a grammar school education but to ensure that he gets it. Would he not agree that the only sanction behind this arrangement is depriving a child of a grammar school education if his father is not willing to sign the agreement?

Mr. Ede: No, it is not. This does not compel the Corporation to insist if it believes in the good faith of the parent. In those circumstances it may not present the document. I have sat too often as a governor of various grammar schools—both denominational and county grammar schools—to which parents come as soon as a child has

reached 15 years of age and claim to withdraw the child from the school with no other object than that of getting him into a job on the basis that he is a grammar school boy when, in fact, he has not completed the course which enables him to claim that status. If he goes to another school, which has a four-year course without a General Certificate of Education at the end and where the course is completed by the age of 15, he is not sailing under false colours.
I want to see the status of a grammar school, which in these days is concerned not so much with grammar as with science, reserved so that a child claiming to come from one shall have completed the course and shall have the necessary document to show that he has done so.

7.41 p.m.

Mr. H. Rhodes: I wish to comment on Part IV of the Bill, dealing with water, and particularly on Clauses 13, 14 and 15. My Comments are in no way strictures on the Oldham Corporation, because I have the greatest admiration for the foresight of the late councillors and aldermen of Oldham, who, years ago, handled the provision of water so well. They have led the field in that respect, as they have led it in others, such as mental health.
I have lived the whole of my life in this valley. One of my earliest recollections is of my grandfather taking me along the bank of the River Tame to tell me how he spread manure for his grandfather who had a small woollen mill at the time of the cotton panic. It was not long after the American Civil War that the legislation which we are considering was put through the House. Oldham was industrialising very quickly at that time and access was given to Saddleworth water irrespective of the future need in Saddle-worth. Now, eighty-five years after the Oldham Water Act was passed, Oldham demands more water. Oldham is entitled to it, but I should like one or two reassurances on the subject.
Since 1875 industry has developed on the banks of this stream. During the last ten or fifteen years there have been difficulties about effluent. It is proposed that the amount of water put into this stream as compensation water by the Oldham Corporation shall be reduced not only in amount, but also in time. May I be assured that the Mersey River Board has


had adequate opportunity to assess the effect of this reduction and has given a guarantee that the purity of the stream will be improved as a result of what is to happen?
The village of Delph, where there has been a good deal of controversy during the last few years about objectionable smells from the river, could be in an even worse position after the Bill has been passed. Has the Mersey River Board given adequate consideration to the problem? Will it guarantee that the residents are not adversely affected by the Bill? I ask the spokesman for the Oldham Corporation to reply to those questions, because this means a good deal to the residents.

7.44 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: May I at once point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) that the spokesmen for the Oldham Corporation have no right to speak in the House. I, as a Member for Oldham, am not here as the spokesman of the Corporation. I was not consulted about the Bill and I do not think that it is my duty to defend it unless I think that it is in the interests of Oldham to do so. We are having a Second Reading debate, however, and for that purpose I will try to reply to the sincere criticisms which have been made of certain Clauses before I conclude.
I understand that we are to have the privilege of hearing the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government—and that is always a privilege. An Instruction has been tabled in relation to Clause 103. I am well aware, moreover, that the House wishes to get through other matters as well as this Bill—and I make no complaint about that. The debate has been instructive and helpful, and I am sure that the representatives of the Oldham Corporation who have been able to hear it, although not to intervene, will take note of every word that has been and will be said.
I have thought it perhaps for the convenience of the House—and this is by the gracious courtesy of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp)—to say that we each propose to speak once. I therefore rise to speak on Second Reading. In view of the dis-

cussion, and if I have not replied sufficiently to it, it may be that my hon. Friend will also feel that he should speak on Second Reading. That apart, if it is for the convenience of the House, he will speak on the Instruction. I hope, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you will not be too unkind on the Instruction if, for the convenience of the House, we try to limit ourselves each to one speech.
There are two Oldhams to which one always refers. There is the Oldham with its great tradition in literature and the arts, the Oldham which is a vigorous town and which has made great contributions to our national life. I have not the privilege to be an Oldham man, although I am proud of my own native county, but in Oldham we are proud of our virile life and of what we have contributed in almost every sphere of industry.
But there is the other Oldham—an Oldham which I beg hon. Members to go and see; because I am convinced—and I have said it before—that no one living in the South can ever realise the almost insoluble problems which confront our overcrowded towns. I do not wish to say one controversial word, but I would point out that we read in the newspapers about proposals for urban land. These may be important proposals and they may be controversial proposals. The fact is that in Oldham we have no urban land; there is nowhere we can build. We had a small extension in the last Act—and I had to fight for that Act. We have streets that need repairing.
For fifteen years I have been a Member for Oldham, and I know that the House will forgive me for saying with pride that it is the longest period of continuous service that any Oldham Member has had, but at the end of it all I shall be forced to say that there are so many problems left to solve. We sometimes go round and boast of our contributions to the collective life of the town. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne was good enough to talk about the new work in mental health which is being done in Oldham, and which is being admired all over the world. We are proud, too, of our old people's homes.
Sometimes I boast—I will not do so today—and tell the House what we have


done. Then I look at the problems which remain. This Bill has come, as most Private Bills have come, because the Corporation has been driven to seek powers to deal with all these problems—streets, houses and the necessity of rebuilding. They are all powers which are vitally needed. To the Bill are added, as is always the case with Private Bills, Clauses which have been included in other Private Bills and passed by the House.
The hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) referred to the Clause dealing with hairdressers and barbers. I must confess that I am in a difficulty, because this is one of the Clauses on which I am personally committed. As the House will recall, the hairdressers sought registration powers, and they put up a case for having their own registration. I remember—it must have been twelve years ago—that Friday morning when we counted heads and decided that we should probably pass the Bill in their favour, and then my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) emerged with other members of the Labour Cabinet to go through the Lobby and defeat that little Bill. That infant Act suffered an unhappy death.
This is not an important Clause. I can only say that I have no instructions on it, and in the situation as it is I cannot have any instructions; it is a question for Committee. I am sure that hon. Members do not wish to vote against the Second Reading of a Bill with 115 Clauses because of a point of that kind.

Mr. Dudley Williams: I appreciate the courteous way in which the hon. Gentleman is dealing with the point which I raised. Will he undertake to do his best to see that this Clause, which I think is offensive, is removed? I am not against the hairdressers having an organisation, if that is thought desirable, but I think it most undesirable that these matters should be done by individual local authorities If the hon. Gentleman will give that undertaking I will not vote against the Second Reading.

Mr. Hale: As I have said, my difficulty is that I am already committed to the hairdressers on it. They want it. I committed myself ten years ago. I have not heard much about it since then.

It seems to me to be a sensible and useful measure. I have taken note of the objections which the hon. Member has made. They are being listened to now. I promise him with complete sincerity that, without any observations for or against from me, I will see that his remarks are conveyed to everyone concerned. I say with very great respect to the hon. Member that I hope that he will think it over and not turn a Second Reading debate into a Committee debate upon a Clause to which I have not heard any objection from anyone else. Not a soul has ever written to me about this Clause. The hon. Member has never seen me about it, and I am not provided with any ammunition on it. For him to say that he will oppose the Second Reading of the Bill because of that Clause seems to be taking a step which might bring our procedure into contempt.
Perhaps I may explain the situation on the Clause on which my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Cam-borne (Mr. Hayman) and the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) spoke. We have the deepest sympathy with what they have said. That always has been a point of view—and a point of view entitled to respect. The position concerning this Clause, I am informed, is this: about 30 corporations have it. The Oldham Corporation used to use these agreements, but has discontinued them for some years, and there has been genuine alarm since they discontinued them because the percentage of children prematurely leaving school has very greatly increased. In this connection, Oldham has some rather special difficulties—not only arising from migration, which is perhaps a small part of these difficulties, but because there have been vary fluctuating conditions of employment, which have sometimes influenced parents to try to get their children into employment.

Mr. Hayman: I am sure that my hon. Friend will find, if he will read the statement which his own Corporation has issued, that the numbers have very considerably decreased.

Mr. Hale: Yes, but they have all over the country. This is relative. Relatively, the Oldham figures are unfortunate. The Ministry of Education is now taking a, keen interest in this question. We shall


not get the Clause in Committee unless the Ministry of Education is satisfied that we have established a special case. I give the undertaking that we never enforce these agreements if we can help it.
We think that the argument put forward by my right hon. Friend is the right argument and that when we are providing education in these circumstances there should be some sort of practice such as that. I remember these agreements many years ago. I know that they always raised legal points. The real point was that the county court judge used to say, "I do not know what liquidated damages are. Can you prove any damage?"
What we are doing under this Clause, which seems to be a great improvement on the old procedure, is to fix a maximum sum and not a minimum. The county court judge is entitled to say, "I will not give you a farthing". I am sure that the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South will appreciate that there is real protection in that. This is the way we should legislate, because it not only inhibits the county court judge from giving unnecessary damages but inhibits the Corporation from bringing unnecessary proceedings. Unless we have a case that ought to be brought to the court we cannot bring it under this Clause because the court can award such damages as it thinks fit not exceeding the figure named in the Clause.

Mr. Ronald Bell: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. If the hon. Gentleman will look at the Clause he will see that it makes provision for the payment of any sum not exceeding £10. That is quite different, as the hon. Gentleman knows, from the court having any discretion to award such sum as it thinks fit.

Mr. Hale: That is my impression, but I may be wrong.

Mr. Ronald Bell: May I complete my interruption? The remainder of the Clause makes it clear that no proof of any actual damage is necessary and will indeed be irrelevant. Therefore, this is, in fact, a penalty Clause, and the Court will grant whatever is the amount in the agreement.

Mr. Hale: If the hon. Member had finished reading the Clause he would have seen that it says:

shall be entitled … to recover … any sum not exceeding the sum specified in the agreement which the court may think fit to award in all the circumstances of the case.

Mr. Ronald Bell: The actual damages are not relevant.

Mr. Hale: The Clause says:
any sum … which the court may think fit to award in all the circumstances of the case.
The hon. Member knows that the county court judge is not especially favourable to the corporations. Therefore, there is a substantial protection. But this is a Committee point and I would ask hon. Members not to press their opposition at this stage.
The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) raised objection to Clause 103. I say immediately that it seemed to me, when he very courteously put the matter before me some months ago, that, on the face of it, the Clause was open to objection. The Clause deals with the redemption of the Corporation's debentures. This is a Clause which is put into quite a number of Bills. It is a Clause such as this House has passed in respect of a great many debentures. Having now got the whole of the facts, I must say that I see no possible objection to the Clause; indeed, it seems to be essential and necessary.
May I briefly tell the House why. Under the Act of 1880, the Oldham Corporation issued what were called debentures. They were technically debentures in the sense that the interest was charged upon the resources of the Corporation. But they were not debentures of the ordinary kind, because they were not redeemable. They were perpetual annuities. They were in many ways rather like the old French rentes.
The whole point of it was that they offered just a little extra interest to attract money. They offered 4 per cent., which, in 1880, was a very high rate. Consols were issued at 2½ per cent. They bore some relation to Consols. About £500,000 worth were issued between 1880 and 1886, and they have fluctuated with the interest rates of the country. They are transferable on the Stock Exchange. I am told, but I have not checked this, that the price has been as high as £140 and as low as about £60. They are subject to that sort of fluctuation. They have changed hands. A large proportion is now held in a limited number of hands.


But there is no procedure for redemption.
If the Corporation wanted to pay them off for £100, it could not. It could not pay them off for £100 when they were worth £140, or when they were worth £60. Therefore, the Corporation has tried to devise a method to deal with this. It does not intend, and it cannot afford, to pay them all off quickly. Over £300,000 worth is still outstanding. The Corporation has brought back a few itself and extinguished them in that way.
I think that the Corporation has acted with great propriety. If one can make any criticism, it is that it is a pity that all the facts were not before us when the Bill was first produced, but the Borough Treasurer of Oldham, who is known and respected throughout the north of England as one of the most distinguished men occupying such a position, has gone into this with the greatest possible care and given us all the help he can.
There is no ordinary way out, and we have to find some method. They cannot be redeemed in the ordinary way. There must be statutory permission to do it. That is the statutory permission contained in the Clause.

Mr. Ian Percival: I see what the hon. Member means, but it could be misunderstood. There is power to redeem under Section 227 of the Oldham Improvement Act, 1880, which says that the Corporation may redeem at any time by agreement with the stockholders.

Mr. Hale: I agree, but that is by agreement with the stockholders. [Interruption.] Let us face this. Do let us be reasonable about it. If the Corporation has to agree to any price fixed by the stockholders, it is helpless. I will tell hon. Members what the proposal is, because I know that they are interested and wish to be fair.
I will say at once on the details that if the hon. Member for Southport intends to say that there is some inherent unfairness in the selection of 21 per cent. Consols or 4 per cent. consolidated stock, I promise him at once that we will consider that in Committee, because we want to be absolutely fair.

Mr. Percival: That is not my point.

Mr. Hale: I am obliged. All we want to ensure is that when we wipe off this debt we do so by transferring it to specified Government securities which will yield the stockholders just as much interest as they have been drawing.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. When Second Reading is passed, if it is passed, there will be a separate debate on the Instruction on Clause 103, and that will be the time when it will be most convenient to discuss these detailed points.

Mr. Hale: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I rose to open my speech with the statement, which was heard by every person in the Chamber except you, that I was seeking for the convenience of the House to deal on Second Reading with any points raised. I said that I hoped that by so doing I should not have to defer later proceedings by rising again to make a second speech on the Instruction. Indeed, I have taken the highest possible advice on that for the convenience of the House.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I fully appreciate what the hon. Member says, but the trouble is that his speech is causing other hon. Members to rise on this point. Therefore, we are liable to have two debates on the one point, which is not desirable.

Mr. Hale: With respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, we have dealt with three Clauses on Second Reading. Though I have expressed my appreciation for the intervention of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South and other hon. Members, the point I have been making is that they were really Committee points. It is a little hard on me if I have to listen for an hour to Clause after Clause being discussed without being able to mention the contents of the Bill when replying to the objections.

Mr. G. B. Drayson: There is an Instruction on this point.

Mr. Hale: That may be. I am trying to secure the Second Reading of the Bill. I am passionately anxious to do so. That is why I most earnestly do not desire to say one controversial word.
We are about to hear the intervention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I beg hon. Members to remember


that we are on Second Reading and that the Oldham Corporation seeks powers which are vitally needed.
One of the Clauses to which we attach great importance is that dealing with mill lodges, which is designed to save the lives of many children. Once every three months or so for years we have had inquests on children who have been attracted to unfenced waters or unbounded property of which we cannot trace the owners. It would be very unfortunate if a Measure of great importance to a town of Oldham's importance were jeopardised by Committee points raised on Clauses on which I have no doubt that hon. Members feel sincerely.

Mr. J. A. Leavey: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. He has given way many times already and I do not like having to interrupt him again. However, he has on several occasions said that we should not be intervening, because these are Committee points. That is precisely the difficulty which concerns the House, because the Committee procedure to which the Bill will be subject is substantially different from the ordinary Committee procedure which follows the Second Reading of a Public Bill. In the Committee procedure to which this Bill will be subject it is very difficult to deal by debate with the various Clauses. That is the very reason why we have the procedure, which we shall shortly follow, of moving that an Instruction be given to the Committee.
Therefore, I earnestly beg the hon. Gentleman not to rebuke us on that ground, because the cause of some of the anxiety expressed from both sides is that it is very difficult to make Amendments under the Private Bill Committee procedure in the way one would normally do so with a Public Bill.

Mr. Hale: I did not seek to rebuke. On the contrary, I said that I welcomed interruptions. The hon. Member will realise the difficulties under which I labour in this procedure. In a sense we are all responsible for it, because we helped to revise the Private Bill procedure. I am in the position of trying to defend a sorely needed Measure. I am trying to consult the convenience of the House, because I know that many hon.

Members want to get on to other matters. I am trying to cover a whole series of Clauses in a fairly brief survey. I may fail in that.
However, my only observation on that was addressed to the hon. Member for Exeter. I begged him not to kill the Bill, however strongly he may feel about the hairdressing Clause. I promise him that we will seriously, honestly and fairly try to consider the points and objections he made. In the very nature of things, as I was not told about it before, I have not even had a chance of getting a word on it at this stage. I know that my colleagues on the Oldham Corporation will be most anxious to consider it, and I promise the hon. Member that they will.

Mr. Dudley Williams: I promise the hon. Gentleman that I shall not oppose Second Reading, but I shall oppose Third Reading if that Clause remains. I make my position clear.

Mr. Hale: I am obliged for that statement, which does make the position clear.
The water scheme is a mere recognition in statutory terms of an existing condition. Indeed, many Clauses merely bring up to date old Acts. We have notified and consulted every person concerned with the supply of water in the area. We have the approval of the Mersey River Board. The whole scheme has been discussed at length, and we have not received a single complaint.
May I, with your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, make one other observation on Clause 103? Before the Bill was produced the Corporation wrote to every shareholder holding shares in the Oldham Corporation issued between 1880 and 1886, including one hon. Member who holds some. It would not be true to say that none of them had any protest. Two or three letters were received, but the Corporation feels that the explanations given satisfied everyone—

Sir Cyril Black: A constituent of mine is quite a substantial holder of these debentures. She has objected to the proposals, and I have objected to the Town Clerk of Oldham on her behalf. To suggest that these objectors have all agreed is quite beside the point.

Mr. Hale: I did not say that—I really did not. I am being misrepresented, I think. I had the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) in mind. I have been fully informed about that case. The Town Clerk could not have given more information, though some of it, perhaps, a little late. I said that we had received letters about it. but I did not say there had been no objection. I said that no objection was seriously pursued—

Sir C. Black: I am pursuing it seriously tonight.

Mr. Hale: I have made it perfectly clear that I take the view, and have taken it for a very long time, that this procedure of non-redeemable securities, whether called Consols, Daltons or what, is undesirable. I have made it quite clear that this sort of procedure, other than in exceptional circumstances, is one that I do not want to defend. I will go into partnership with the hon. Member if he likes, and try to protect the person on fixed income from some of the effects of—and I do not make a party point here—the policy followed over the years by Governments of both parties.
I think that these people have a case and, on the appropriate occasion, I will put that case, but I think that we should try as best we can, in a situation of very real difficulty, fairly, honourably and decently to meet all the suggestions that have been made, and to put forward a proposition which is fair. In those circumstances, I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. Peter Emery: I should like briefly to refer to the overall scope of this Bill. Whether or not there is precedent, it is not good that we should have omnibus Bills put before us with as many as 141 Clauses, four Schedules.

Mr. J. T. Price: If the hon. Member will take the trouble to go to the Library and consult the precedents, he will find many Private Bills, particularly county council Bills, running, not to 140 but to 300, 400 or 500 Clauses. Those Bills have all been examined but, as often as not, have gone through on the nod.

Mr. Emery: The hon. Member is absolutely right, and that is why I am speaking now. That is the whole point.

I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). He is passionately concerned about some parts of the Bill and, for the sake of his own constituency, he is in great need to see this Bill passed because of the great need there is for some of its Clauses.
Is it, however, really necessary that we should have Clause after Clause permitting only what the present law allows? In Part VI of the Bill there are Clauses entitled "Nuisance from pigeons etc."; "Emission of waste products of manufacturing processes", and "Silencers for internal combustion engines". All of those are already dealt with by the present law, as are "Offences in respect of telephone boxes, fire hydrants etc." The House should not be cluttered up with such matters when there are specific things that are absolutely essential.
In the same way, following on what several hon. Members have stated, I believe that in this Bill the law is being altered specifically for Oldham. We have already had reference to Clause 123 but, by Clause 48, Section 148 of the 1936 Act is being reinterpreted specifically for Oldham. Whether this has been done frequently before does not excuse it. In principle it seems to me to be a bad thing—

Mr. E. Fernyhough: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it not perfectly correct to say that there is no way in which the Oldham Corporation can get these powers except by this procedure? If the hon. Member has any complaint at all, it is against Her Majesty's Government for not introducing legislation to change the procedure for bringing in these Bills.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): In so far as that is a point of order, I think that the hon. Member is entitled to develop what he is now arguing.

Mr. Emery: I should like my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to say whether he thinks it is a good thing that Private Bills of this sort should be in this form of omnibus legislation, changing specific law for Oldham, and doing a lot of things that, in my view, are quite unnecessary, and which go a long way towards making a number of hon. Members likely to oppose the Second Reading when they really do not want to.

Mr. Hale: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's philosophical discourse on this matter and I have great sympathy with his general point of view but, after all, the Oldham Corporation is not responsible for the Private Bill procedure. I am told that there is not a Clause in the Bill that has not been incorporated in other Acts in respect of towns in the North. We cannot blame the Corporation for pursuing a procedure pursued by every other town for all the fifteen years I have been in this House.

Mr. Emery: It seems to me that at some time or other a stop has to be made. Is every Bill that comes forward to include everything we have ever seen before in every other Private Bill which has come before the House? That seems to be the worst possible argument to put forward for making every Private Bill appear in this form of omnibus legislation. It is to that that I object specifically. If the point made by the hon. Member for Oldham, West is taken further and further, we shall in time get Bills that are not 140 Clauses, but 1,040 Clauses long.
That must be wrong, and I should like to see from now on the exact opposite being done with Private Bills, and the point of view taken that specific points that are important to the locality should be dealt with briefly and quickly. Those Bills would then get through without any problems on the Floor of the House, on Second Reading, during Committee stage and on Third Reading.

8.19 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph): Strong feelings have been most eloquently expressed on this Bill, and perhaps I might venture to intervene now. This Bill is, after all, a fairly normal sort of Measure—a collection of miscellaneous powers which the Oldham Corporation thinks will help it to carry out its duties more effectively as a local authority. I know that a large number of hon. Members present are not in the mood to accept the argument that things that have precedents are necessarily good, but the fact is that nearly all of the very large number of Clauses in the Bill have not just one but many precedents.
The Bill has already been considered in another place. Before that, my right hon. Friend had a number of discussions with the Corporation about details, as a result of which some Amendments were made. He then submitted a lengthy Report on the Bill calling attention to other aspects, as a result of which still further Amendments were made in another place. Others of my right hon. Friends have followed the same procedure, but there are still, in their view, a number of matters that will require to be considered and, if the Bill is given a Second Reading tonight, my right hon. Friend and other Ministers concerned will submit reports calling the attention of the Private Bill Committee to them. I am sure that the Committee charged with that duty, if the Bill is given a Second Reading, will not fail to consider the very strong feelings which have been expressed this evening. Perhaps I may refer briefly to the main items which have come up.
The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman), vigorously supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) holds very strong views about school agreements. He has spoken on this subject before. The House may like to know that after he spoke on the last occasion the Committee upstairs removed the Clause to which he objected. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Education will submit a report to the Committee. I cannot anticipate exactly what he will say, but I know that, although he does not feel as strongly on the subject as the hon. Member, he is in general not persuaded that these agreements serve a very useful purpose. This is very much a Committee point, and I know that it will be considered if the Bill is given a Second Reading.
My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) feels strongly about the registration of hairdressers. I can tell him that this is a well-precedented Clause. I am sure that the Committee will note his view about it. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) raised a point about compensation water. I can reassure him that, as a result of discussions between the Corporation and the other interests concerned, the Corporation proposes to suggest an Amendment to the Bill which will vary the times, the days and the quantities in such a way


as to satisfy the Corporation and, I understand, the other interests concerned. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member will be satisfied.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Emery), in a very lively intervention, questioned the whole value of these omnibus Bills. The fact is that this is the only way, in the short time that the House allows, that Corporations can at present obtain the powers they think they require, subject to Parliamentary control. I hope that hon. Members will allow me to accept some part of the responsibility for this because, if Parliament were to extend to all local authorities some of the most well-precedented and accepted powers which, one after another, local authorities have received by Private Bill procedure, the length of the Bills might be reduced and the time taken in the House might be saved.
In an earlier debate this Session, I said that my right hon. Friend fully accepts that this is a task which needs to be undertaken from time to time. I can report that a great deal of progress has been made in the preparation of two Bills to extend generally to all local authorities a considerable number of provisions which appear regularly in local Acts. I cannot tonight add to what has already been said on the subject, which is that the first of these two Bills, dealing with public health matters, will be introduced as soon as Parliamentary time permits.
If the Oldham Corporation Bill is given a Second Reading, we shall go on to discuss a Clause of it, and I will not attempt to anticipate that debate. Apart from that question, however, there are several other aspects which will require consideration. In the view of my right hon. Friend, they are all matters which can quite well be dealt with in the first instance by a Select Committee upstairs. A Select Committee, of course, can always give a Bill very much more searching and satisfactory examination than is possible for us on the Floor of the House.
I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. Ronald Bell: By leave of the House. I should like to say that, in my view, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) was on a very fair

point when he said that it would be wrong to defeat the Bill on Second Reading in respect of one Clause. I feel just as strongly now as I did earlier about Clause 123, but the fact is that I failed to put dawn an Instruction to omit it, which is what I should have done.
In the circumstances, although if someone else chooses to divide the House I shall support him, I do not myself at this stage propose to do so. However, I reserve full freedom of action on Third Reading, if the Clause is not struck out in Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. Ian Percival: I beg to move,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to leave out Clause 103.
My principal reason for moving this Instruction is quite short. The essence of it is that I believe it to be wrong in principle for the House to give to a local authority powers enabling it, in effect, to set aside its agreements with and its obligations to members of the public, in this instance debenture stockholders, and to substitute something else convenient to itself, whether the debenture holders like it or not. This is what Clause 103, in effect, is designed to do.
Before I go further, I should make it clear that, although we are dealing here with a local Private Bill, this is a matter of much wider interest. It is of interest not only to the inhabitants of Oldham. The debenture stock was offered to the public at large. The matter came to my attention because a constituent had a holding of it and objected to being treated in this way, and I know that others of my hon. Friends have constituents similarly placed.
I regarded this as a serious matter of principle. Before raising it in the House, I was at great pains to endeavour to consider every aspect of this case, and the views which I shall express were formed only after corresponding with the Parliamentary Agents of the promoters and after a meeting with the Town Clerk of Oldham held at his request, that correspondence and that meeting being designed, so far as I was concerned, for


one purpose only, to give the promoters an opportunity to persuade me, if there were good grounds, that I was wrong.
I say at once that, despite the arguments then advanced, I remain entirely unconvinced. My views have been formed, also, only after personal investigation of every one of the so-called precedents for these powers, and only after a great deal of thought and discussion on the matter with all sorts of people.
I should first endeavour to acquaint any hon. Members who are, perhaps, not fully conversant with the matter with the present situation and how it arose. As the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) told us, it arose because in 1880 Oldham promoted the Oldham Improvement Act of that year under which it took certain powers. I think it important to look at the whole of that part of the Act which deals with money. The first thing that the Corporation did was to take power to borrow £370,000. A great many of the Sections dealt with how the money should be borrowed and how it should be paid back. Section 221 authorised the corporation to borrow all or part of the money by creating and issuing Oldham Corporation debenture stock. It went on to specify the conditions on which the stock should be issued, provisions for transfer, for payment of interest and for the appointment of a receiver if the interest was not paid.
Then Section 227 states that the Corporation may by agreement with any stockholder at any time redeem any part of that stock.
This type of debenture was not new. There are other kinds of debentures, known as perpetual debentures, which are well-known commercial means for raising money, which do not even have provision that the debentures may be redeemed by agreement.
Then—and this is significant—the Act of 1880 went on to provide in Section 234 that the Corporation should establish a sinking fund. Without going into detail on that Section, the way it was framed was that the Corporation had to set up a sinking fund, and the amount which it had to pay into it had to be worked out so that in time that sinking fund would be large enough to redeem the stock at par.
Any member of the public who was then invited to subscribe for the debenture stock and who looked at the Act to see what his rights were would find that the only way in which the Corporation could redeem would be with his agreement and that the Corporation was obliged to set up a sinking fund which was obviously meant to meet such eventuality and would ultimately enable the Corporation to redeem the stock at par. So that he can have been left in no doubt as to what he would get if these were ever redeemed, namely, his money back.
It would be unnecessary for the Corporation to have these powers if there was any chance of the debenture holders agreeing to them. They are needed so that the debentures can be redeemed on these terms even if the stockholders do not want them to be.
This is not redemption; it is conversion. It is converting debenture stock into Consols of one kind or another. The Corporation is to be free to choose any one of these three, but I make no point on the choice of the three. It could redeem or convert by giving the holder of the stock such an amount of one of these three as would be appropriate. I believe that this is fundamentally wrong in principle.
The issue of debentures to raise and secure loans is a very common and useful commercial practice. Usually they are irredeemable except on the winding up of a company. When the hon. Member for Oldham, West says that although it is called a debenture it is not one because it is irredeemable, I am bound to say that I do not follow him. It is quite common in commercial practice to have perpetual debentures. I have one in my hand, called "2¾ per cent. perpetual debenture". When the company wanted to get rid of that debenture it had only one course open to it—to call a meeting at which the debenture holders were asked to agree to the redemption of that perpetual debenture. This, as far as I know, is quite normal practice.
The advantage of the practice from the lender's point of view is that, if he is not likely to want his money for some time and is willing to invest on a long-term basis, he knows that if ever the debenture is redeemed he will get his


£100 back. It is the only advantage of this commercial device of the debenture. If the company ever wants to pay him out and to get rid of him it will have to repay the money.
The advantage from the borrower's point of view is that he gets the money on a long-term basis.

Mr. J. T. Price: Is there not a basic fallacy in this argument? It is fascinating, as a piece of historical research, that when one considers that these debentures were issued in 1880 and that the debenture holders to whom the promise was made and with whom a contract was entered into—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Surely the original owners must have either sold or transferred the debentures or have died many years ago. I am trying to follow the hon. Member's argument, but I cannot see the full force of it if these contracts do not apply to the people who originally held them.

Mr. Percival: The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) is, of course, entitled to his view. It is quite clear from his intervention that his approach to this matter and my approach to it are fundamentally different. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman will permit me to continue, he based his argument on the fact that this stock was issued in 1880, but the perpetual debentures I was talking about were issued by a well-known public company not far from that date—in 1897. The position was quite clear, and I fail to see how it is any different in this case.

Mr. F. Blackburn: I want to be quite clear what the hon. Gentleman is trying to do. If we delete that Clause, does he suggest that we should go back to the status quo? There is no guarantee that his client would get the repayment from Oldham, and we will be back in the present position, with no guarantee that Oldham will be able to come to an agreement with the holders of the debentures. Is that the position which the hon. Gentleman wants?

Mr. Percival: That may very well be the case, but if the hon. Gentleman took his argument a little further, he would agree that my constituent and all other debenture stockholders would then be holding what they want to hold, and if they did not want to hold it, they would

sell it and buy Consols. It is entirely a matter for the Oldham Corporation. If it wishes to get rid of this debenture stock it can do it under the existing provisons of the 1880 Act by agreement, and it may very well be, though I do not know because I have not gone into the question with my constituent as to what terms he would accept, that it would be perfectly open to the Corporation either to negotiate terms with the debenture holders or to leave the position as it is. If it leaves the position as it is, the holders of debenture stock are left holding what they want to hold, because otherwise, ex hypothesi, they would have got rid of it on the best terms they could get.

Mr. Blackburn: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reply to my question, but he did not say whether he wanted the status quo to remain.

Mr. Percival: Oldham now wants to repay this debenture stock, but wants to redeem it, otherwise than at par and otherwise than in accordance with the terms on which it was issued; that is to say, otherwise than by agreement. The reason why it needs these powers is because it could not do it otherwise. It amounts, in effect, to compulsory purchase of this debenture stock and to converting it into gilt-edged securities.
I have made one reference to public companies, and I should like to make another which I hope may strengthen my point. Debenture stock of this kind has been issued for a very long time by public companies. It is, in fact, a commercial practice which has been copied by the local authorities, rather than the other way round. In this particular time, if one takes the trouble to look, one finds that it is by no means infrequent for a public company to want to get rid of debentures and to be free to deal with the assets on which the loan was charged, but it has only one way of doing it—either by repaying the money or by getting the agreement of the debenture holders to some other terms.

Mr. Hale: Or by passing an extraordinary resolution.

Mr. Percival: If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the shareholders of the company could or should pass an extraordinary resolution to deprive the debenture holders of their rights, then,


like the hon. Member for Westhoughton sitting next to him, he and I are not on the same wavelength at all.

Mr. Hale: The hon. Gentleman did not say that. He said that they could not do it. I said that they can.

Mr. Percival: To avoid any possible controversy on the point, I say that they have in practice no alternative but either to redeem it at par or to reach agreement with the debenture holders. If any one of them came to this House and said, "We should like power to convert into gilt-edged", I think they would be laughed out. As at present advised, I see no reason to treat this local authority, or for that matter any other, any differently.
I do not complain about the interventions because, I hope, they have enabled me to stress certain points. I have been a little longer than I intended, but I must nevertheless deal with the reasons put to me as to why the Corporation should be allowed to do this and to express a view about them. It is said in paragraph 8 of the promoters' statement that these provisions are precedented. Even if they were, I should not be particularly impressed by that argument unless they were precedented in hundreds of previous Acts over a long period. If they were precedented by four previous Acts I should be unimpressed.
I have examined each of the Statutes referred to in the statement as being a precedent. To say the least of it, the suggestion that the Statutes referred to are precedents is disingenuous. The Statutes referred to in the promoters' statement have provisions which are similar in one respect, and in one respect only, in that they have provision containing machinery such as is contained in Clause 103. What is so different is that what was to be redeemed under the provisions of those four Acts was not debenture stock and has no similarity to it.
The House might care to know briefly what those Acts were dealing with. The Halifax Corporation Act was dealing with the redemption of market stock. In 1853, when a market company was operating under a market Act, it was decided to vest the assets of that

market company in the Corporation, which took over all the debts and obligations, and to dissolve the company. In this purely domestic matter, the consideration to be paid by the Corporation to the market company was £7,700 consolidated stock, which was the amount expended by the market company under the authority of the market Act. What was being redeemed under similar provisions in the Halifax Corporation Act was that £7,700 consolidated stock. To suggest that that is a precedent for taking the powers contained in Clause 103 of the Bill to redeem debenture stock, which is something to which the public are invited to subscribe, is, to say the least of it, misleading.
The Bolton Corporation Act is the next one referred to. That was a case of the redemption of gas annuities, something quite different from what is desired to be redeemed in the present case. I have looked all through these four Acts. It is interesting to note that in the Bolton Corporation Act the Corporation took powers to borrow money by issuing Bolton Corporation bonds, which is just what the Oldham Corporation did in 1880. The Bolton Corporation took those powers in 1949, but the Act which gave those powers went on to say that every sum so borrowed should be repaid by instalments of principal and interest or by creating a sinking fund sufficient to redeem them at par. In so far as there was anything in the Bolton Corporation Act similar to the present case it supports my proposition rather than the Oldham Corporation.
The Rochdale Corporation Act dealt with the redemption of water annuities. In that case the Rochdale Waterways Act, 1886, provided for the vesting of the waterworks in the local authority and in return perpetual annuities were to be issued. Again that is a quite different proposition. There was no question of inviting the public to subscribe for debenture stock on known conditions.
I should have doubted the last example if I had not seen it with my own eyes, but I assure hon. Members that I have done so. It is the Wolverhampton Corporation Act, 1950. What was being redeemed there was the yearly rent of the waterworks. The local authority had had to pay a rent to the


water undertaking which was separate. Under that Act the local authority took over the waterworks and the waterworks company was dissolved. That left the question of the yearly rent which the Corporation had to pay to the company prior to that date. This was a purely local matter quite different from the matter with which we are concerned here and that was dealt with by a conversion similar to that which the Oldham Corporation wants to carry out under Clause 103.
These alleged precedents are no precedents at all. I go a stage further and say—whether I am right or wrong in saying that it is disingenuous for the promoters to put it in that way—that, when one finds that the reason given turns out to be not a very valid one, I think it roust have the same effect as the thirteenth chime of an old clock which cast doubts on all that has gone before it.
Then we come to the other reason given in the promoters' statement. In paragraphs 9 and 10 they say that the income will be the same. Then they introduce what I shall state openly is rather the surprising statement, that the only difference would be that the holders would be paid the income by the Government. I submit that that shows an almost contemptuous disregard for the rights of debenture stockholders who became stockholders at the Corporation's invitation and on terms stipulated in the private Act which was promoted by Oldham Corporation.
Oldham Corporation now ignorer all that. It gives the stockholders a security entirely different from that which they had before, and it entirely overlooks the fact that the Corporation's only right is to redeem by agreement and that the reason why that is its only right is that that is what the Corporation put in the Act of 1880 which it promoted.
Paragraph 10 of the promoters' statement says that the capital value might be a little more after the conversion is carried out. That is true, but it is only true and only relevant if the holders of the stock wanted to sell it, but they do not. If they had wanted to sell they would have sold it and these powers would not have been necessary.
This is the kind of stock which is bought, safe in the knowledge that the security is good and that if it is ever

redeemed one will get par value, but now the moment has arrived when the Corporation wants to redeem the stock but does not want to redeem it on the original terms. These two paragraphs in the promoters' statement entirely ignore the fact that debenture stockholders have a legal right and that they must be the judges of whether whatever is proposed is acceptable to them; and what is proposed here is to take away the original terms and to substitute others whether the stockholders like it or not.
There is another side to paragraphs 9 and 10 of the statement, and because I feel it I will say straight out that in my view the statement and reasons of the promoters are open to criticism as much for what is omitted as for what is included. There is no reference in the statement to why the Corporation wants to do it this way and why it would be such a big advantage financially for it to do it this way.
I can illustrate my point very shortly and, I hope, clearly by taking an example. Suppose the Corporation exercised its powers to redeem by converting to 4 per cent. Consols. That would mean a straight exchange of £100 of 4 per cent. Consols for £100 of debenture stocks. One hundred pounds al 4 per cent. Consols can be bought for about £67. Accordingly, if these powers were given to the Corporation it would have the great advantage to the Corporation that it would be able to pay off at about 67 per cent. of the total outstanding. I feel that it might have been better if that fact, which no doubt must be a powerful reason in the minds of the Corporation, had been stated openly and clearly.

Mr. J. T. Price: I appreciate that the hon. Member is trying to be fair and logical in the way in which he is presenting a very forceful argument, but surely this is a purely academic point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is academic. If hon. Gentlemen opposite will be as patient with me as I have been with the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) in listening to his very interesting discourse, I will try to be equally logical. Surely it is an academic point, because a great many holders of the existing debentures which are the subject of this debate did not buy them at £100 in 1880. Some of them probably


bought the debentures only last week, perhaps at £62. An attempt to try to convince me, sitting on this side of the House—or even if I were sitting on the other side of the House—as a rational, thinking human being that this sort of person would suffer an injustice is "going some" to my mind. I do not think that the argument holds up at all in practical terms. It is purely an academic question.

Mr. Percival: It all depends from which side one approaches the matter. The hon. Gentleman has rather anticipated me by referring to "injustice". I have not used the word yet, but I shall do so before I finish.
I was simply pointing out that I think it would have been very much more fair and would have given the House a far more complete picture of the matter if this reason, which must be one of the practical reasons why the Corporation wants to do it this way, had been freely and frankly stated. Nevertheless, I have now stated it for the information of the House.
I would also draw attention to the sentence at the end of paragraph 10 of the statement which states:
It is in the knowledge of the Corporation that the debenture stock has not as ready a sale in the market as the proposed substituted securities
That needs a little comment. I was informed by the Town Clerk in the discussion that I had with him at his request that the Corporation had for some years been buying all the debenture stock that was available for it to buy, and I find it a little difficult to appreciate what is meant by that sentence when we know that there is one very ready buyer, namely, the Oldham Corporation. I think it right that what might otherwise be very misleading should be explained to the House before it decides this matter.
Finally, the promoters in paragraph 19 of the statement submit that there is "no principle" involved. I submit that there is a principle here, namely, whether for the convenience of Oldham and to save Oldham money this House should permit it to put aside its agreements with and obligations to the public who have contracted with it at its invitation and to substitute these

powers. The interventions of the hon. Member for Westhoughton make it clear that he would not regard it as a matter of principle to disregard the present right of the stockholders. But we differ about that.

Mr. J. T. Price: If the hon. Gentleman asks me rhetorical questions he must expect me to give him straight answers. I am as much concerned about this matter as a matter of public principle and public interest in respect of overriding personal private interests as any hon. Member of the House. I have no interests whatever in the Bill. I do not represent Oldham. I am merely another Lancashire Member who is sitting in the House interested in the debate. I am here purely for my own interest. We are here discussing a matter of principle. This is the first occasion when I have complained that the hon. Gentleman has been unfair in any of the observations which he has made.

Mr. Percival: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and I will proceed with my argument. No doubt he will pay me the compliment of accepting that, whether he agrees with me or not, my convictions are as sincere as his. I shall listen to what he has to say. My constituents, and a number of other small holders, have complained about this proposal, as is evidenced by some of my hon. Friends. Some of the big holders have not objected and so it can be taken that they have agreed to this. I have no objection to this being done by agreement.
Those who object can fairly say that this stock, and their rights in relation to it, came into existence under powers given by this House and under provisions laid down by the House and that those powers and provisions provide only that the stock should be redeemed by agreement. The public was invited to lend money to Oldham and/or to put money into debenture stock on these terms.

Mr. Hale: In opening, I said that I had very great sympathy with this type of argument, and I believe that I told the hon. Gentleman that personally before this debate. But I hope, if he is to press his objection to this, that he will press his own Government to take some steps about the holders of Consols and other Government stocks who have been


losers in just the same way through policies which have reduced their value. All that Oldham Corporation is saying is, "Instead of having the security of the corporation you shall have the security of the Conservative Government." The hon. Gentleman might do something about that.

Mr. Percival: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I resist the temptation to be turned aside by that red herring. My objection to this is quite a limited one; it is whether a local authority—and whether Oldham should be the first—should have the power to do this kind of thing whether the debenture holders agree or not. The debenture holders find themselves in this position because of the powers given to Oldham by this House and under provisions laid down by this House, and those who do not want to be redeemed in this way are entitled to the protection of the House. These terms should be honoured and not abandoned in the way which Clause 103 suggests.
There is a very important matter of principle involved. This proposal is certainly open to such objections as to justify the Instruction which is the subject of this Motion. It is for these reasons that I ask the House to accept the Motion. For a very long time the House has professed to safeguard the rights and liberties of the individual and the rule of law. In a small butt, none the less, important way, this is an opportunity to put those objects which we profess to admire into operation. In my respectful submission justice demands that we should do so.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Charles Mapp: In rising to oppose the Instruction, I make it clear that I have a constituency but no other interest in the matter, as a ratepayer, for instance, apart from the over-riding interest that any Member of Parliament has in an area of his constituency
The Clause in question represents the unanimous view of Oldham Town Council over a considerable period, the view of a town council which has its share of differing opinions. This is not a matter which has arisen only in the last year or so. Oldham Corporation last had a Bill before the House in the 1930s and this and other Clauses have

resulted from the experience of the local authority and are now placed before the House for the consideration of hon. Members.
Clause 103 represents a sensible and equitable solution to one of the problems which beset the old but nevertheless vigorous and thrifty town of Oldham. It represents a serious attempt by the local authority to clothe an old and ancient obligation, which still continues, with modern implements suitable for the modern age. The Corporation has no intention of not meeting its obligations to the holders of debenture stock.
In passing, I may say that the Bill attracted the attention of The Times, which on 11th January said of the compensation provisions that:
… the terms of exchange are nothing if not fair, both to borrower and to lender.
The stock was originally issued in about 1880 to 1886 at 4 per cent. Approximately 306,000 units remain unredeemed, so that it can be seen that over the years an endeavour has been made to redeem stock as it became available on the market. It is on this issue that the controversy arises.
In the Oldham Corporation Act, 1880, the stock is described as debenture stock. I am not a lawyer and I have been looking into the matter in the Library this afternoon, but I found no reference to perpetual debenture stock. So far as I can see, in practical day-to-day language, the debenture stock is largely the same as the annuities with which Clause 102 is to deal in the same way as the debenture stock is dealt with.
The Corporation has done everything to liquidate the stock by purchase. Nevertheless, in view of the fact that all other forms of security issued by the Corporation are redeemable, and also that the sound finances of a local authority justify making such stock redeemable, or fixing an age limit, the Corporation has come forward in 1960, in an endeavour to apply a remedy—and not in order to make some profit out of the transaction—to deal honourably with an obligation undertaken in 1880. Some of the reasons for the obligation were mentioned by the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Percival), namely, to deal with some of the market liabilities that at that time became its responsibility.
The need to give modern implements to local authorities in dealing with their finances is surely agreed to by hon. Members on both sides of the House. At this stage I should like to comment on the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Southport in regard to the obligations to the stockholders. First, let us consider the impact of history on the position. The stock was issued about eighty years ago. By the processes of change it will have lost its original par value of 100. A few months ago the market value was about 66. I venture to suggest that the argument of the hon. Member for Southport that for ever and a day, without any means of rectifying the problem, the stock should always be redeemable at par, is unjust, and that the situation should be remedied if we can find a proper means of doing so.
When the Corporation examined the position it had no precedents to go on. It still wanted to get a redemption date for this stock, and rightly looked around for the precedents which this House had set, if there were any. It found precedents which have been referred to by the hon. Member for Southport. But there is some question whether they really are precedents. My information is that the correct precedent to be followed in this case is that of the Halifax Corporation, and that the others, concerning Wolverhampton, Rochdale and Bolton, are based on annuities, which means that the problem dealt with there is a slight variation of that facing Oldham Corporation.

Mr. Percival: Will the hon. Member say whether he personally considers that the redemption of the Halifax market stock, the nature of which I have described, is in any way similar to redeeming debenture stock to which the public is invited to subscribe?

Mr. Mapp: As I understand it, the Oldham debenture stock came into the hands of the Oldham Corporation because it was necessary to deal with a market property.

Mr. Percival: I have looked at the Oldham Inprovement Act of 1880. Some parts might have been connected with the market, but the enabling section enabled the Corporation to borrow up to £370,000 for the purposes and for the

objects which were stated, one of which was for building a town hall. Only a small part was for market purposes. It was entirely different from this case.

Mr. Mapp: I am obliged to the hon. Member. I said that only part had arisen in respect of a market. I think that also there was a part arising in connection with some water undertaking responsibilities, but I am uninformed as to whether a town hall was built. All I can say is that the age of the present town hall seems to suggest that it was built long before that time.
Coming to the facts of the present problem, I have with me the document issued on 4th December last by the Town Clerk of Oldham indicating to every debenture holder the proposals of the Corporation and promising that the precise proposals before the House would be supplied to all who might require them. With due deference to the intervention of the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black), my information was, and still is, that some half dozen or so perfectly reasonable inquiries have been made of the Oldham authority and a great deal of explanation has been given but that the correspondence has terminated, with one exception, with those explanations. The one exception is in the case of a constituent of the hon. Member for Southport.

Sir C. Black: It is true that the correspondence that my constituent has had and that I have had with the Town Clerk, has terminated, but in an entirely unsatisfactory and negative sense. I wrote to the Town Clerk and asked whether the Corporation would not deal with this matter in the normal way of repaying pound for pound the money borrowed. The correspondence terminated with a letter from the Town Clerk, which said:
The Corporation is not prepared voluntarily to redeem the Debenture Stock in cash at par, but, as mentioned in my letter of the 16th December, it is proposed to purchase the stock at the market rate for 4 per cent. Consols.
It may be correct to say that the correspondence has terminated but it has terminated in a most unsatisfactory way.

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: I have in my hand correspondence similar to that quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black).

Mr. Mapp: I respect the factual information which is now forthcoming, but I should say to the hon. Members that, in order to preserve rights and ensure that protestations are really made, the correspondence referred to should have been presented finally to the Town Clerk of Oldham in such a way that he understood that protest was being made. I assure them that the authorities in Oldham—and I assure the House in that regard—have in good faith held throughout that only one objector to this procedure was prepared to come to the House and make his objection known. I assure the House that if the authorities in Oldham had known of any deep recurring protest about this, they would have considered the matter further. In a few moments I may use some words to indicate the reasonableness of the Corporation in that regard.

Mr. Dudley Williams: Is the hon. Member suggesting that if all the people who hold stock write to hon. Members, and hon. Members send their protests to the Town Clerk, it is likely that the Oldham Corporation will recant at the last moment and repay all these people in full?

Mr. Mapp: I am not at the moment saying that. What I am saying is that if hon. Members have made inquiries, as apparently they have, from the local authority, and have had some explanation which is good for the local authority but, as we now learn, not good for the hon. Member, then the local authority should have been informed that the constituent was dissatisfied and it would then be cognisant of the position.

Mr. Hirst: Mr. Hirst rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I think the House should remember that we are not in Committee.

Mr. Mapp: May I come to the one objector? The stock outstanding is £306,000, and as far as is known officially there is one objector holding £420 of stock. An examination of the list of stockholders shows that eleven hold 43 per cent. of this stock, and there is good reason to believe that in general they are satisfied with the arrangements proposed in the Bill. There is evidence that some of them, subsequent to the advice, have bought further stock in the

knowledge that the House may or may not, in due course, provide the remedy contained in the Bill.
I do not seek to influence the House solely from this point of view, but I would point out that if, from the date when the Corporation was last in the market purchasing this stock, some time in April, the proposals in the Bill had been available, the stock holder would have achieved a capital gain, as the hon. Member for Southport conceded, of £8 or £9. That fact is well known and understood by those knowledgeable in the market.
I should like the House to send the Bill to Committee without any Instruction. I will quote from a document from the Oldham Corporation that
it is not intended, nor possible for the Corporation to redeem in the immediate future. The reason the proposal is made now is that it requires statutory authority.
The document, referring to the Committee upstairs, continues:
If the Committee, having heard the evidence of experts, decided (a) that some limit should be set on the power to redeem (e.g. by postponement until after a particular date) and/or (b) that the holder should be given the option of a cash payment, related to the value of the securities, the Corporation will accept their view and be prepared to suggest alternative methods of dealing with the matter, but they would wish to apply the same procedure to all holders of both annuities and debentures.
In asking the House to reject the Instruction, I want to leave it with the feeling that, before the Committee upstairs, when the facts can all be presented on both sides of the argument, the Oldham Corporation is prepared to act reasonably and equitably in all the circumstances. In view of that, I ask the House to reject the Instruction.

9.20 p.m.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber): I hope that the House will think it convenient if I indicate quite briefly the views of the Government on the Clause which we have been discussing. Before I do so perhaps I might say two things.
First, I think that the whole House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) for his enterprise in raising this matter. There is clearly a difficulty, and again, I am sure that hon. Members on both sides


will agree, there is a very important question involved in this Clause.
The procedure for Private Bill legislation, which was referred to during the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill, lays a very heavy duty on Parliament. It is certainly a duty which ought not to be, and, indeed, cannot be, Shouldered entirely by Ministers and the Government. It is of great benefit that there should be some hon. Members who are prepared to take the trouble to probe for what on the surface may not appear to be weak spots in Private Bills, and to bring them into the open so that they can be properly examined.
No one who listened to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Southport will doubt that he had taken very great trouble in preparing the case that he put to us. I should also like to say that no one who heard the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) on this point will doubt that he spoke with sincerity. I might mention that as long ago as January of this year my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) first drew my attention to this mattes and expressed his very grave concern.
Secondly, I want to say by way of introduction that, in my view, there is no suggestion that in putting this Clause in the Bill the Oldham Corporation is acting other than in good faith. There is certainly no question here of its trying to swindle its debenture holders or anything of that sort. If there were, we should not have the slightest difficulty in knowing what to do.
The question is more difficult than that. I do want to go over the whole ground again in detail to explain the position of the Corporation and its stock, but the Corporation inherited from its predecessors, some eighty years ago, the duty to service certain debenture stock—stock which is not redeemable, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southport pointed out, according to the terms on which it was originally issued, without the agreement of the stockholder.
What the Corporation now wishes to do is to be able to redeem this stock which it finds to be a source of administrative inconvenience and expense. To this end it has taken steps in recent years, with only partial success, to secure the voluntary agreements of stockholders

to accept an equivalent holding of Government securities in exchange. It now proposes to take power in this Clause to pay off and redeem the stock by giving the stockholders, in exchange, an equivalent holding of one of three undated Government stocks so as to produce the same gross income.
I think that it is clear that in some ways this is not a bad bargain. The stockholder is assured of the same income as he is getting at present. That income is secured on the credit of the United Kingdom Government, and his holding is in a form which might well prove more readily marketable, if he wished to sell it, than it is at present.
As the hon. Member for Oldham, East mentioned quite properly, The Times in its City columns in January commented:
The terms of the exchange are nothing if not fair to borrower and lender.
There is, of course, one feature which could at least in theory beheld to damage the interests of a stockholder. Whereas at present the stockholder holds, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, a truly irredeemable stock, he would, after the proposed exchange, be holding a stock which could be redeemed at the option of the Government. This is a point which I think the Corporation might have been better advised to have mentioned in the letter which it very properly sent to all stockholders last September. I admit that that may seem rather academic in the case of 2½ per cent. Government stocks which it is proposed should be used at the Council's option, but it might, at some future time, look rather less academic in relation to the 4 per cent. consolidated stock.

Mr. Hale: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way he has presented this matter. That was in fact mentioned by the Corporation in a private letter to me. It rather took the view that it was not its business to forecast Government intentions, but it emphasised that it included 4 per cent. stock particularly because there was a prospect of a redemption date.

Mr. Barber: My advice to the House is not to make too much of this point, but I thought it worth while mentioning it, because this is the main respect in which stockholders would be getting something different from what they are at present.
The real charge against the proposal is not against the terms proposed, which are not unfair, but against the breach which it represents of the principle that the terms of a contract between a lender and borrower cannot be subsequently altered without the consent of both parties. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I entirely accept the point that it is within the competence of Parliament to legislate in a way which affects the rights, even the contractual rights, of private individuals.
It can be argued, and indeed it was implicit in the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, East, that it is precisely to meet this sort of case, where individual rights are or may be affected, that Parliament has evolved this elaborate procedure for criticising Private Bills. It is a quite different procedure from our procedure for dealing with Public Bills and is rather more akin to that of the courts. Under this procedure, it is true that it has been open to any stockholder who does not like these proposals to come along either in person or through counsel and voice his objection.
On the other hand, one must face the fact that to do that would seem a rather formidable procedure for the ordinary citizen, who may well be content to do what some stockholders have done, namely, to get in touch with their Members of Parliament and leave the matter to what I hope can be properly described as the good sense of Parliament.
It has been claimed that there are precedents for this type of proposal. My hon. Friend the Member for Southport contended that they were not helpful. The hon. Member for Oldham, East thought that they were helpful. I certainly accept—we must all accept—that there are precedents for altering the terms of a contract by private legislation, but I think that the question again is not whether there may be precedents but whether, even if there are, it would be proper or wise to follow them in the particular circumstances of this case.
On the general principle, the best advice I can give to the House is this. Where the passage of time and the change of circumstances make the original terms of a contract a source of unreasonable hardship or unfairness to one of the parties, it may be quite proper for that

party to come to Parliament with a Private Bill and ask Parliament to amend the terms of the contract in a manner which is broadly equitable.
But to alter contractual rights with anything less than the full agreement of all the parties concerned is indeed a very serious decision. I think that Parliament is right to take a very cautious view of any such proposals and in effect to confine its sanction to those cases where the ill to be cured is one of substance and where no other remedy seems to be possible.
Applying this test to the present case, it is not clear that the continued life of these irredeemable stocks is much more than a source of some inconvenience and administrative cost to Oldham Corporation. The Government's view is, therefore, that the case for this Clause is not really strong enough and that the Corporation would be better advised to continue to follow the path of voluntary persuasion, as it has done in the past, than to ask Parliament for these very drastic statutory powers.
A judgment of this sort is essentially a matter for Parliament rather than for the Government. That is why I am glad that my hon. Friends have decided to raise the question this evening. What is at issue is, after all, not a question of Government policy. It is a principle, the sanctity of contract, which underlines the whole of civilised life. I repeat, of course, that it must be accepted that Parliament has power to over-ride that principle but, particularly in a case of this sort, I think that it is right that Parliament as a whole should make a collective judgment on the merits of the case.
For those reasons, I think that all would agree that this is essentially a House of Commons matter but, accepting that the Oldham Corporation is acting in good faith, I must say that I take the same view as did my hon. Friend the Member for Southport, that the circumstances of this case are not such as to justify the serious step of departing from the terms on which these loans were originally issued.
I therefore think that the House would be well advised to accept the Motion.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 150, Noes 77.

Division No. 120.]
AYES
[6.53 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
de Freitas, Geoffrey


Ainsley, William
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Delargy, Hugh


Albu, Austen
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Diamond, John


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Dodds, Norman


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Donnelly, Desmond


Awbery, Stan
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Driberg, Tom


Bacon, Mist Alice
Callaghan, James
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John


Beaney, Alan
Chapman, Donald
Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Cliffe, Michael
Edelman, Maurice


Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)


Benn, Hn.A. Wedgwood (Brist'I, S.E.)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Benson, Sir George
Crosland, Anthony
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)


Blackburn, F.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Evans, Albert


Blyton, William
Darling, George
Fernyhough, E.


Boardman, H.
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Fitch, Alan


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Fletcher, Eric


Bowles, Frank
Davies, Ifor (Cower)
Foot, Dingle


Boyden, James
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Forman, J. G.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Deer, George
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)




Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
McInnes, James
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Ginsburg, David
Mackie, John
Skeffington, Arthur


Gooch, E. G.
McLeavy, Frank
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Gourlay, Harry
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Small, William


Greenwood, Anthony
Mahon, Simon
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Grey, Charles
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Snow, Julian


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Manuel, A. C.
Sorensen, R. W.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mapp, Charles
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Spriggs, Leslie


Gunter, Ray
Marsh, Richard
Steele, Thomas


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mason, Roy
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mayhew, Christopher
Stonehouse, John


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Mellish, R. J.
Stones, William


Hannan, William
Mendelson, J. J.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Millan, Bruce
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Hayman, F. H.
Mitchison, G. R.
Stross, Dr.Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Healey, Denis
Monslow, Walter
Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith


Henderson, Rt.Hn.Arthur (RwlyRegis)
Moody, A. S.
Swain, Thomas


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Morris, John
Swingler, Stephen


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Mort, D. L.
Sylvester, George


Hilton, A. V.
Moyle, Arthur
Symonds, J. B.


Holman, Percy
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Houghton, Douglas
Oliver, G. H.
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Howell, Charles A.
Oram, A. E.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Hoy, James H.
Oswald, Thomas
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Owen, Will
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Padley, W. E.
Thornton, Ernest


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Paget, R. T.
Timmons, John


Hunter, A. E.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Tomney, Frank


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Pargiter, G. A.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Wainwright, Edwin


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)
Warbey, William


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Paton, John
Watkins, Tudor


Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Pavitt, Laurence
Weitzman, David


Jeger, George
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Peart, Frederick
Wells, William (Walsall. N.)


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pentland, Norman
Wheeldon, W. E.


Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)




Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
White, Mrs. Eirene


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Popplewell, Ernest
Whitlock, William 

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Wigg, George


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Probert, Arthur
Wilkins, W. A.


Kelley, Richard
Proctor, W. T.
Willey, Frederick


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Randall, Harry
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Lawson, George
Rankin, John
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Ledger, Ron
Redhead, E. C.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Reid, William
Winterbottom, R. E.


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Reynolds, G. W.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Rhodes, H.
Woof, Robert


Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wyatt, Woodrow 

Lipton, Marcus
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Logan, David
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Zilliacus, K.


Loughlin, Charles
Ross, William



Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


McCann, John
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Mr. J. Taylor and


MacColl, James
Short, Edward
Mr. G. H. R. Rogers.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Black, Sir Cyril
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)


Aitken, W. T.
Bossom, Clive
Cole, Norman


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Bourne-Arton, A.
Collard, Richard


Allason, James
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Cooke, Robert


Alport, Rt. Hon. C. J. M.
Box, Donald
Cooper, A. E.


Amory, Rt.Hn. D. Heathcoat (Tiv'tn)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill


Arbuthnot, John
Boyle, Sir Edward
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.


Atkins, Humphrey
Brewis, John
Cordie, John


Balniel, Lord
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Corfield, F. V.


Barber, Anthony
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Costain, A. P.


Barlow, Sir John
Brooman-White, R.
Coulson, J. M.


Barter, John
Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Craddock, Sir Beresford


Batsford, Brian
Bryan, Paul
Critchley, Julian


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Bullard, Denys
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Gol. O. E.


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Cunningham, Knox,


Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.)
Burden, F. A.
Curran, Charles


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Currie, G. B. H.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Butler, Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Dalkeith, Earl of


Berkeley, Humphry
Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Dance, James


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Davies, Rt.Hn. Clement (Montgomery)


Bidgood, John C.
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Biggs-Davison, John
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Deedes, W. F.


Bingham, R. M.
Cary, Sir Robert
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Channon, H. P. G.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.


Bishop, F. P.
Chichester-Clark, R.
Doughty, Charles







Drayson, G. B.
Kershaw, Anthony
Rawlinson, Peter


du Cann, Edward
Kimball, Marcus
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Duncan, Sir James
Kirk, Peter
Rees, Hugh


Duthie, Sir William
Lagden, Godfrey
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Eden, John
Lambton, Viscount
Renton, David


Emery, Peter
Lancaster, Col. C. G
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Langford-Holt, J.
Ridsdale, Julian


Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Leather, E. H. C.
Rippon, Geoffrey


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Leavey, J. A.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Farr, John
Leburn, Gilmour
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Finlay, Graeme
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Robson Brown, Sir William


Fisher, Nigel
Lindsay, Martin
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Roots, William


Forrest, George
Litchfield, Capt. John
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Foster, John Lloyd, Rt. Hon, Selwyn (Wirral)
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Fraser, Rn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Longbottom, Charles
Russell, Ronald


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Longden, Gilbert
Scott-Hopkins, James


Freeth, Denzil
Loveys, Walter H.
Sharples, Richard


Gammans, Lady
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Shaw, M.

 Gardner, Edward
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Shepherd, William


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Simon, Sir Jocelyn


Glover, Sir Douglas
McAdden, Stephen
Skeet, T. H. H.


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
MacArthur, Ian
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
McLaren, Martin
Smithers, Peter


Godber, J. B
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Goodhew, Victor
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Gough, Frederick
Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute&amp;N.Ayrs.)
Speir, Rupert


Gower, Raymond
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.(Nantwich)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Green, Alan
Macleod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Gresham Cooke, R.
McMaster, Stanley R.
Stodart, J. A.


Grimond, J.
Macmillan, Rt.Hn.Harold (Bromley)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Grimston, Sir Robert
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Storey, Sir Samuel


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Maginnis, John E.
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Hare, Rt. Hon. John
Maitland, Cdr. Sir John
Sumner, Ronald (Orpington)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Talbot, John E.

 Harris, Reader (Heston)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Tapsell, Peter


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Marlowe, Anthony
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Marshall, Douglas
Teeling, William


Harvie, Anderson, Miss
Marten, Neil
Temple, John M.


Hay, John
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Head, Rt. Hon. Antony
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Mawby, Ray
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Maydon, Lt.Cmdr. S. L. C.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Hendry, Forbes
Mills, Stratton
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Hill. Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Montgomery, Fergus
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Moore, Sir Thomas
Turner, Colin


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Morgan, William
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Morrison, John
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Hobson, John
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hocking, Philip N.
Nabarro, Gerald
Vane, W. M. F.


Holland, Philip
Neave, Airey
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John


Hollingworth, John
Nicholls, Harmar
Vickers, Miss Joan


Holt, Arthur
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Noble, Michael
Wade, Donald


Hopkins, Alan
Nugent, Sir Richard
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Hornby, R. P.
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wall, Patrick


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Howard, Hon. C. R. (St. Ives)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)
Watts, James


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Webster, David


Hughes-Young, Michael
Page, Graham
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Whitelaw, William


Hurd, Sir Anthony
Partridge, E.
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Iremonger, T. L.
Peel, John
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Percival, Ian
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Jackson, John
Peyton, John
Wise, A. R.


James, David
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Woodhouse, C. M.


Jennings, J. C.
Pilkington, Capt. Richard
Woodnutt, Mark


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Pitman, I. J.
Woollam, John


Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Pitt, Miss Edith
Worsley, Marcus


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Pott, Percivall
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Joseph, Sir Keith
Powell, J. Enoch


 Kaberry, Sir Donald
Price, David (Eastleigh)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)
Mr. E. Wakefield and


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Mr. Gibson-Watt.


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Ramsden, James

Division No. 121.]
AYES
[9.31 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Atkins, Humphrey
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Pitman, I. J.


Barber, Anthony
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Pitt, Miss Edith


Barlow, Sir John
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Pott, Percivall


Barter, John
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Powell, J. Enoch


Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Hendry, Forbes
Ramsden, James


Bidgood, John C.
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Rawlinson, Peter


Biggs-Davison, John
Hirst, Geoffrey
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Bingham, R. M.
Holland, Philip
Rees, Hugh


Bishop, F. P.
Hopkins, Alan
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hornby, R. P.
Roots, William


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Box, Donald
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Russell, Ronald


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hughes-Young, Michael
Scott-Hopkins, James


Bullard, Denys
Iremonger, T. L.
Sharples, Richard


Burden, F. A.
James, David
Shaw, M.


Campbell, Cordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Skeet, T. H. H.


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Joseph, Sir Keith
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Channon, H. P. G.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Smithers, Peter


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kershaw, Anthony
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Kirk, Peter
Stodart, J. A.


Collard, Richard
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Cordle, John
Leavey, J. A.
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Corfield, F. V.
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Talbot, John E.


Coulson, J. M.
Litchfield, Capt. John
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Critchley, Julian
Longden, Gilbert
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Loveys, Walter H.
Thorpe, Jeremy


Curran, Charles
MacArthur, Ian
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Currie, G. B. H.
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Maddan, Martin
Turner, Colin


Deedes, W. F.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Doughty, Charles
Mathew, Gordon (Meriden)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Drayson, G. B.
Mawby, Ray
Vane, W. M. F.


du Cann, Edward
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Duncan, Sir James
Mills, Stratton
Wade, Donald


Emery, Peter
Morgan, William
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynmouth)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Morrison, John
Watts, James


Finlay, Graeme
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Neave, Airey
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Gammans, Lady
Nicholls, Harmar
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Gardner, Edward
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gibson-Watt, David
Noble, Michael
Wise, A. R.


Glover, Sir Douglas
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Woodhouse, C. M.


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)
Woodnutt, Mark


Goodhart, Philip
Page, Graham
Woollam, John


Goodhew, Victor
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Worsley, Marcus


Gower, Raymond
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)



Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Peel, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Green, Alan
Percival, Ian
Sir C. Black and




Mr. Gresham Cooke.




NOES


Ainsley, William
Kelley, Richard
Redhead, E. C.


Blackburn, P.
Lawson, George
Rhodes, H.


Boyden, James
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Ross, William


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Short, Edward


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Loughlin, Charles
Skeffington, Arthur


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McCann, John
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
McInnes, James
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Spriggs, Leslie


Donnelly, Desmond
Mackie, John
Steele, Thomas


Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter
McLeavy, Frank
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mahon, Simon
Stonehouse, John


Fernyhough, E.
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Stones, William


Fitch, Alan
Manuel, A. C.
Symonds, J. B.


Fletcher, Eric
Mapp, Charles
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Millan, Bruce
Temple, John M.


Gourlay, Harry
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Thornton, Ernest


Greenwood, Anthony
Noel-Baker, Rt.Hn.Philip (Derby, S.)
Wainwright, Edwin


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Oswald, Thomas
Warbey, William


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Paget, R. T.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Hannan, William
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Whitlock, William


Hayman, F. H.
Pearson, Arthur (pontypridd)
Wilkins, W. A.


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Peart, Frederick
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Howell, Charles A.
Pentland, Norman
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Hoy, James H.
Popplewell, Ernest
Winterbottom, R. E.


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Randall, Harry



Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Rankin, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. J. T. Price and Mr. Blyton.

ESSO PETROLEUM COMPANY BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. William Warbey: It is rather regrettable that the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) and his hon. Friends have seen fit to run away from the Amendment for the rejection of the Bill on Second Reading, possibly because they realise that it raises rather wider issues than they are prepared to face. Nevertheless, in the Instruction which they have tabled, and which we shall be considering later, they recognise that this Private Bill raises issues of so wide a character that the subject with which it deals ought more properly to be dealt with by general legislation rather than by Private Bill procedure.
The question of the development of pipelines for the carrying of bulk liquids and gases and, indeed, solids, such as coal, which can be floated on water is becoming more and more prominent. No one on this side, I think, would wish to suggest for a moment that the use of pipelines for such a purpose is not a very useful and valuable means of transportation. What we must recognise is that this is something which is beginning to develop on a substantial scale and involves the necessity of inquiring as to how far it is being carried out in accordance with public interest and policy. On the Continent of Europe there is already a very substantial increase in the number of projects for pipelines to carry not only crude oil to refineries, but also refined products from the refineries to major points of consumption.
In its issue of 18th June the Economist made this comment:
In Britain, as on the Continent, the next decade seems likely to see a much larger development of pipelines—perhaps the largest non-Governmental development of any transport system this century, apart from the electricity grid and super grid
Later, it stated:
When all these lines have been constructed … some excess of transport as well as of refining capacity would seem likely to emerge

Those words constitute a warning of what might well happen in this country if we do not take care to see that this new form of transportation is developed in accordance with the public interest.
So far, only rather small projects of this character have been put forward. I believe that there have been three Private Bills for the promotion of pipelines—the first in 1947, for a line from Milford Haven to Llandarcy, the second in 1958, for one from Stanlow to Parkington, and the third in 1959, for one from Waltonon-Thames to London Airport. The first was promoted by British Petroleum, the second by Shell and the third by Shell-Mex and British Petroleum. These are comparatively short lines. Now we have before us a project for the construction of two quite long lines, about 75 miles in length, running from Fawley right across southern England, in one case to London Airport and in the other case to Severnside.
It is perhaps only the beginning of what may be a still further and increasingly rapid development. There are, I understand, proposals already under consideration for a further pipeline between London and Birmingham, and for another pipeline from the Thames Estuary through Essex and Hertfordshire. If we are not careful, before very long we might see a whole network of pipelines being developed by a number of oil companies, each seeking a controlled distribution system for its own products.
The same kind of thing could very well happen as happened in the case of the early railway development in this country, namely, the haphazard construction of a network of lines, very often duplicating and overlapping, constructed at very great inconvenience to public and private interests, and not, in the end, producing a properly co-ordinated and effective system serving the public interest.
Therefore, we have now to examine, from the broad national point of view, to what extent these pipelines should be constructed, how and upon what conditions. If we look at the proposal put before us in this Bill, we have to ask ourselves two questions. First, are these two pipelines really necessary, and, secondly, if they are necessary, then should they be built, owned and operated


by a private company or by some other undertaking?
There is already in existence, I understand, a State-owned pipeline from Shell-haven, on the Thames, to London Airport, and it is rented at the moment by the Shell-Mex and B.P. Company. Shell-Mex and B.P. are constructing their own pipeline for which they have obtained the authority of Parliament, from Walton-on-Thames to London Airport, so that there will be two pipelines serving London Airport.
I think that we ought to know—indeed, it is quite impossible to judge whether this new additional pipeline to London Airport is required unless we do know—far example, what is the capacity of the existing and projected pipelines, and whether that capacity is sufficient to serve the present and anticipated future needs of London Airport. It may be that the Minister of Power will be able to tell us when he intervenes in the debate, because, obviously, we ought to have information of that kind before we can pass judgment. If the Government are not able to give us this information, I certainly say that there is a case for delaying consideration of this Bill.
If it is suggested that the existing pipeline and the projected ones are being operated by different companies, that is, from the point of view of the public interest, immaterial. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh."] An hon. Gentleman says "Oh", but surely we do not want to see constructed in this country duplicating and redundant pipelines. If those which exist or are already protected have sufficient capacity to supply the need, others are not required. I am sure that no hon. Member will suggest that there is one iota of difference in either quality or price between the aviation spirit which will be delivered by Shell-Mex and B.P., on the one hand, or Esso, on the other. Everybody knows that there is no difference whatever, and, therefore, it does not matter which kind of fuel is eventually delivered to the consumer. All that matters is whether the capacity is adequate for the need. That is the first thing.
The second question is who should construct and operate the pipeline and under what conditions. We are asked

that it should be constructed by the Esso Petroleum Company. Who is this company? It is a subsidiary of what is probably the largest private enterprise corporation in the world, Standard Oil of New Jersey, by far the biggest of the five major American oil companies, with assets of over £2,500 million and with over 300 subsidiary companies, of which this Esso Petroleum Company is one.
These international oil companies make vast profits from the crude oil produced by their major subsidiaries. The major subsidiary of Standard Oil of New Jersey, for example—the Creole Company—in 1954 had a turnover of 719 million dollars, on which it made a profit of 240 million dollars—in other words, a profit of 33⅓ per cent. of the turnover, which is not bad going.
The oil companies make their vast profits on their crude oil. Their subsidiary companies, the refining and marketing companies, exist only to provide commercial outlets for the oil. They do not mind very much if Esso Petroleum, or Shell for that matter, makes only 3 per cent. on its turnover. What matters to them is that Esso and the other refining and marketing companies shall be able to provide continuous commercial outlets for the product on which they are making their substantial profits.
The function of Esso Petroleum Company, like the other numerous subsidiaries in this and other countries all over the world, is, in effect, to develop means of distribution and marketing to ensure that the oil which comes out of the wells is eventually sold at as large a profit to the original producer as possible.
To make sure that the oil is sold, the company seeks to get as large a control of the market as possible. That is the purpose of the building of its tanker fleets, refineries, pipelines and petrol stations, all of which serve the one purpose of establishing a chain under the monopoly or semi-monopoly control of these international oil companies so that they can ensure guaranteed sale points for their product.
Therefore, what we are being asked to do in the Bill is to offer to Standard Oil of New Jersey and its subsidiary in this country a controlled monopoly distribution chain. The establishment of


the pipeline will provide a distribution system which will be solely under the control and operation of this company and, presumably, will deliver only the products of this company.
We really ought to ask whether that is in the public interest, whether it is in the interest of the consumers and in the interest of the other fuel industries of the country. We know very well the kind of pricing policy which the oil companies follow, a policy, for example, of selling their fuel oil below the cost of production so as to knock coal out of the market while compensating for their losses on the fuel oil by overcharging for their petrol and refined products, so that the motorists are, in fact, being called upon to pay for the undermining of the country's coal industry.
That is the kind of pricing policy which is quite deliberately followed by the oil companies in order to break their way into the market and gradually establish control over it. What would happen to the prices if they established a firm monopoly or semi-monopoly position in the fuel market would be very unfortunate in the end for the consumers who are at present contracting to buy fuel oil.
We must consider very seriously, therefore, whether we shall allow a private company to undertake this form of activity. The Times, in a leading article on 27th May, expressed some concern about the rights and powers which the company is seeking in the Bill. It said:
The oil companies like other limited liability companies are private concerns operated for private profit. It might be thought that the nature of their operations invests them with something of the status of public utilities. They dispense products of scarcely less universal importance than electricity or gas. If that is so the question arises how far they should acquire also the de jure status of public utilities and be equipped with some of the powers of statutory undertakings, as this Bill would do, without incurring the full liabilities of the latter.
namely, of statutory undertakings.

A similar point has occurred to the National Farmers' Union which is very concerned about the effect which the Bill may have on farmers. In a letter which it has sent to hon. Members the N.F.U. says:
… the Union does, prima facie question the national desirability of a private commercial concern, such as the Esso Petroleum Company, being able, by way of a private Act, to arm itself with such powers—particularly to acquire compulsorily rights over public and private property—as might be properly applicable in the case of public undertakings with a general or specific duty to provide public services.
The union is coming along very nicely. I am glad that it recognises the case for the public undertakings—

Mr. John Harvey: The hon. Member quoted from the leading article in The Times that part which suited him best. He has not said that in the same article there appeared the words:
But a policy of general obstruction to an enterprise of such obvious advantage (development in the United States offers proof of its value, if proof is needed) and to one which causes such small disturbance to existing interests is both short-sighted and vain.

Mr. Warbey: Naturally, I could quote that part of the leading article in The Times, but it is rather a long leading article and I would not bother the House with the whole of it. Therefore, I quoted the part which suited my argument best.
I said from the very beginning that there would be no obstruction from this side to the general question of the importance of having pipelines where they proved to be valuable—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put:—
That the Proceedings on any Private Business set down for consideration at Seven o'clock this evening by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Wood.]

The House divided: Ayes 148, Noes 52.

Division No. 122.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Bourne-Arton, A.


Atkins, Humphrey
Bidgood, John C.
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)


Barlow, Sir John
Biggs-Davison, John
Box, Donald


Barter, John
Bingham, R. M.
Boyle, Sir Edward


Batsford, Brian
Bishop, F. P.
Bryan, Paul


Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.)
Black, Sir Cyril
Bullard, Denys




Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hornby, R. P.
Ramsden, James


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Channon, H. P. G.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Rees, Hugh


Collard, Richard
Iremonger, T. L.
Roots, William


Cordle, John
James, David
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Corfield, F. V.
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Russell, Ronald


Costain, A. P.
Joseph, Sir Keith
Scott-Hopkins, James


Coulson, J. M.
Kershaw, Anthony
Shaw, M.


Critchley, Julian
Kirk, Peter
Skeet, T. H. H.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Smith, Dudley, (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Currie, G. B. H.
Leavey, J. A.
Smithers, Peter


Dalkeith, Earl of
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Deedes, W. F.
Litchfield, Capt. John
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Donnelly, Desmond
Longden, Gilbert
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


du Cann, Edward
Loveys, Walter H.
Stodart, J. A.


Duncan, Sir James
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Studholme, Sir Henry


Farey-Jones, F. W.
MacArthur, Ian
Temple, John M.


Finlay, Graeme
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Foot, Dingle
Maddan, Martin
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Freeth, Denzil
Matthews, Cordon (Meriden)
Turner, Colin


Gammans, Lady
Mawby, Ray
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Gardner, Edward
Maydon, Lt.Cmdr. S. L. C.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Gibson-Watt, David
Morgan, William
Vane, W. M. F.


Glover, Sir Douglas
Morrison, John
Vickers, Miss Joan


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Neave, Airey
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Goodhart, Philip
Nicholls, Harmar
Watts, James


Goodhew, Victor
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Webster, David


Gower, Raymond
Noble, Michael
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Whitelaw, William


Green, Alan
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Gresham Cooke, R.
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Wise, A. R.


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Page, Graham
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Woodhouse, C. M.


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Woodnutt, Mark


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Peel, John
Worsley, Marcus


Hendry, Forbes
Percival, Ian



Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Pitman, I. J.
Mr. Chichester-Clark and


Hirst, Geoffrey
Pitt, Miss Edith
Mr. Sharples.


Holland, Philip
Pott, Percivall





NOES


Blyton, William
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Randall, Harry


Cronin, John
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Rankin, John


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Loughlin, Charles
Redhead, E. C.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McCann, John
Short, Edward


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
McInnes, James
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Fernyhough, E
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Fitch, Alan Mackie, John
Spriggs, Leslie


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mahon, Simon
Stones, William


Gourlay, Harry
Manuel, A. C.
Symonds, J. B.


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Mapp, Charles
Wainwright, Edwin


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mendelson, J. J.
Warbey, William


Hannan, William
Millan, Bruce
Whitlock, William


Howell, Charles A.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Wilkins, W. A.


Hoy, James H.
Noel-Baker, Rt.Hn.Philip (Derby, S.)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Hunter, A. E.
Oswald, Thomas



Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Kelley, Richard
Peart, Frederick
Mr. Fletcher and


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu.


Lawson, George
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

ESSO PETROLEUM COMPANY BILL (By Order)

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Warbey: I think that it is rather unfortunate—

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: On a point of order. Set down on the Order Paper is a small piece of Government business, the Greenwich Hospital

and Travers' Foundation Statement of Estimated Income and Expenditure. We have an opportunity to discuss this business once a year. Is there any way for private Members who are concerned with this business to have a chance of discussing it at a reasonable time, instead of what looks like being about three o'clock in the morning?

Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) knows, I do not


arrange the order of business, nor do I venture to suggest what is a reasonable time. If the hon. Member likes to wait, his opportunity will be there.

Mr. Warbey: That bears out what I was about to say, that it is rather unfortunate that the House should be called upon to discuss a Bill raising issues of such magnitude at so late an hour of the night. This happens to be a Private Bill, but, as indicated by the Instruction, it raises issues of tremendous magnitude. We ought to have had the opportunity to begin to discuss such a Bill at a reasonable hour instead of so late.
However, I do not propose to take up much more time and I conclude what I was saying when we were interrupted by the Division. An hon. Member drew my attention to the fact that I had not quoted fully from a leading article in The Times. I was saying that there was no intention on my part, or on the part of any Member on this side of the House, in principle to oppose the idea of constructing pipelines to carry oil. We merely want them to be constructed as and when they are required in the public interest in accordance with a proper plan and in conditions which will ensure the maximum safeguards for the private and public interests, consumers and other industries affected.
I emphasise again that The Times raises the point that a private company is seeking the de jure powers of a statutory undertaker and public utility. If that is so, we ought to go rather further and say that if we are to confer such powers then we ought to confer them on a publicly and not privately owned public utility. In other words, pipelines of this type ought to be owned and managed by the State and not by private companies.
After all, the State has a network of about 1,200 miles of pipelines constructed for strategic purposes in this country during the war. What is happening to those pipelines now? Are they being used for the transportation of oil? [HON. MEMBERS: "Some are."] I understand that some are, but I understand that some are not. I have already referred to one that is. It may be that others could be brought into use. I understand that some run across southern and western England and perhaps they could be used instead of the pro

posed pipeline. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Members say that they could not and perhaps they are better informed than I, but that is the kind of information which we should have. I know where the proposed pipeline is to be, but I do not have a map of the Government pipelines to see whether the proposed pipeline is necessary, or whether we can make use of the Government pipelines.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: The Government-owned pipelines wore constructed during the war, when Fawley was not in existence.

Mr. Warbey: That is true, but there may be pipelines running to one of the South Coast ports—Portsmouth or Southampton—and it might be possible to run a short feeder connection from Fawley to the existing pipelines, all under the ownership and control of the Minister of Power. That would be a much more sensible idea than allowing what we shall allow if we pass this Bill and others of a similar character, namely, the building up of a network of duplicated pipelines serving the interests of a number of private oil companies and not the public interest.
I would like to see all the internal operations of the oil companies put under public ownership and control. The import, refining and marketing of oil—everything that takes place in this country—should be publicly owned and controlled. We would then be in a position to formulate a national fuel and power policy which would be in the interests of the whole country. Short of that, I would like to see these projected pipelines put under public ownership and control, so as to ensure that they could be developed according to a co-ordinated plan, in the public interest.

10.17 p.m.

Mr. Airey Neave: I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading. In rising to support the Bill I propose to stick rather more closely to its terms than did the 'hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey). I would remind him that we are talking about a proposal for a pipeline from Fawley to London Airport, and for the carrying of ethylene gas in the case of the I.C.I. project at Avonmouth. The Bill is important, first, in regard to the


whole question of the transport of oil. Whatever view one may have about the relative importance of different sources of power, there can be no doubt that oil has a major contribution to make during the coming years, as far ahead as we can foresee.
I agree that the Bill also raises important constitutional issues as to how far any concern, private or public, should acquire compulsory powers which affect the rights of people involved in the laying down of pipelines. It is not the fault of the Promoters of the Bill that this point has not been raised before, but it is important that it should be raised. It is clearly the duty of Parliament to protect such interests. Hon. Members will have seen the Motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) which asks that the Bill shall be specially considered by a Select Committee. Subject to a small Amendment which some of my hon. Friends and I have put down, I sympathise with this point of view, and consider that it would be a very good solution.
There is also the question whether, if more pipelines are to be laid down and a system of pipelines is to follow these projects, the Private Bill procedure is a desirable one for dealing with these schemes. I do not think that it is. I hope that my right hon. Friend will intervene to tell us what is the Government's attitude and future policy with regard to pipelines, and how future schemes should be dealt with by this House. There are clearly great disadvantages in the present procedure.
The hon. Member for Ashfield made various derogatory remarks about the Esso Petroleum Company, but that company supplies nearly one-third of the United Kingdom market in petroleum products at present. Its refinery at Fawley is the largest in the Commonwealth. In a large organisation like that various firms do business with it, and I ought to say that I am a director of a firm which does business with Esso, although that firm is not interested in this pipeline project. I should also say that the organisation has a very big research centre in my constituency.
Hon. Members know the powers which the Bill proposes to give in regard to

acquisition of land and compensation. I know that many of my hon. Friends have anxieties and doubts about these matters so I shall not refer to them. I should like to refer to the economic reasons for these pipelines. At London Airport very big changes have occurred in civil aviation during the fifteen years since the war. There has been a tenfold increase in air transport. The hon. Member for Ashfield asked about the capacity and why all this was necessary.
He should know that in recent months a number of big jet airliners, the DC8s and Boeing 707s, have come into service, but it may surprise him to know that long-haul jet airliners require up to 16,000 gallons of fuel per plane and the turn-round needed by these aircraft is 45 to 60 minutes. All the refuelling has to be done in that time. The object of this scheme is to supply the point at which this refuelling can be done. It can be done at the rate of 1,000 gallons a minute. These figures indicate the tremendous changes which have occurred in the past eighteen months at London Airport.
Estimates for the whole industry—not only for Esso—are that sales of turbo fuels at London Airport, which were 6½ million gallons in 1958, will be 100 million gallons in 1960. Those are changes which have been brought about by taking into service these big jet airliners. That is the reason why this particular scheme for London Airport is necessary for Esso and, I think I may safely say, for the public interest.
A second good reason is the effect on road traffic which there would be if there were not this pipeline. I refer to this point, because it may affect all of us in our constituencies in view of the possible increase in the number of very large fuel tankers on our roads. If there were no pipeline to West London from Fawley the products would have to be transported by barge to the Fulham depôt from Purfieet, and from Fulham they would be transported by road tanker. Estimates, according to my information, are that by 1964 that would need 210 journeys a day through the west London area. That would create enormous congestion. By having this terminal away from the built-up area, the need for very large tankers on the roads would be greatly reduced and in


fact only fifty journeys would be required from the west London point to Fulham for distribution.
I have not mentioned the ethylene gas pipeline for I.C.I. That would not affect traffic, but I think hon. Members would agree it is a fair point that the petrochemical industry has grown vastly in recent years. Many of its products have found their way into different forms of manufacture of articles such as plastics, synthetic rubbers and chemicals. It is an important point.
I wish to mention one or two other points, for I know that other hon. Members wish to raise further matters about the Bill. In the sixty-five miles of 12-inch pipeline from Fawley to West London, the pipe is to be buried 2½ feet, as proposed by Esso at the moment. It has undertaken that it should be 3 feet under agricultural land. I hope that in certain cases the pipe will be buried deeper, down to 4 feet, where proper need can be shown that that should be done.
A number of bodies, of farmers and others, are concerned that there will be leakages in the pipeline. According to my information, 25 per cent. of the welding will be inspected radiographically. There is a method known as cathodic protection, by running currents down the pipeline, which makes another effective check. It is true that accidental damage may cause leaks to occur along the pipeline route, and I understand that Esso will have it patrolled on foot and also by air in order to check small leakages. Certain checks are therefore proposed. All these matters may well arise on the Petitions against

the Bill in Committee, but I understand that Esso intends to meet all reasonable objections on matters of that kind.
It is true that pipelines have been used for some time. There are pipelines which were constructed during the war, but according to my information they would be quite insufficient and also in the wrong place to deal with the matters to which I have referred, such as London Airport and the I.C.I. project
Pipeline work in this country is in its infancy. In the United States there are about 250,000 miles of fuel pipeline at present. It is important that we should hear from my right hon. Friend what attitude he will adopt to pipelines in the future. Big problems arise in the laying down of a pipeline. For example, no fewer than 1,000 owners of land are involved in this 140 miles. When we debate the Instruction to the Committee, my hon. Friends—and I hope to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker—would like to say something about that. The company has said that it is prepared to pay a fair market price for the easements for which it is asking under the Bill. It contends that once the pipeline has been laid beneath the soil, its presence will not be apparent, subject, of course, to the accidental leakages and other incidents which may occur.
Whatever one may think about the relative importance of various sources of power, oil will continue to be very important for a long time, and as I have said it has an essential contribution to make. I hope that by giving the Bill a Second Reading the House will take note of the need to find the most efficient and economical method of distribution.

10.28 p.m.

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: I oppose the Second Reading of the Bill and warmly support everything which was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) on the ground that we have far too little information about the Government's intentions in general.
We are not convinced about the merits of this particular scheme, but I want to make it clear that we do not wish our remarks to be interpreted as a general attack on the principle of conveying petroleum products by pipeline. Of course not. It is obvious that a pipeline is an economic, efficient and up-to-date method of moving these substances about the country, very much needed in as small and as congested a country as this. We should welcome the rational development of an integrated pipeline system throughout the country, because it would bring substantial economies, which we should welcome, particularly if they were passed on to the consumer. It would also help, as the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) has said to de-congest our roads. The figures I have of the effect of the Shellhaven pipeline indicate that at present it is the equivalent of about eighty tankers a day.

Mr. J. T. Price: My hon. Friend has probably given some thought to the possible effect at present on the railway system in carrying thousands of oil tankers?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I hope that my hon Friend knows me well enough to recollect that I represent one of the most important railway constituencies in the country, if not the most important, and so I have given a great deal of thought to this, and it is one of the subjects I propose to touch on, if he will allow me, in a moment or two.
When we question the Second Reading of the Bill we have three points particularly in mind. The first is whether this pipeline is in the public interest. The second is whether this method of constructing pipelines, the proposal to initiate an apparently quite unplanned and uncontrolled system of competing networks organised by different oil companies, is the right system. Thirdly and

most important, is the point whether the present system of importing, distributing and retailing petroleum products in this country is really in the best interests of the nation as a whole and of individual consumers. I hope very briefly to show reasons why we think it is not.
We should, of course, warmly welcome a properly planned and integrated pipeline network throughout the British Isles, and we think that such a network should be publicly owned, and should be available for the movement of whatever products are suitable for it from point to point.
We are very puzzled by the demand which the promoters of this Bill seem to be making that they should be given all the privileges or many of the privileges of statutory undertakings without any of the duties involved in the case of those public bodies. We are already concerned that the oil companies appear to be prepared to enjoy all the privileges of a monopoly position, the privileges enjoyed by private-profit firms, without giving to the consumer any of the benefits of competition.
It has been said already in this debate that there is no detectable difference in price, in quality, or in service between any of the major petroleum products retailers in this country. There are seven major companies, two controlled by each other, making a total of five, and they will claim they are a good example of capitalist competition. But it is very difficult, from the point of view of the ordinary motorist or, for that matter, the ordinary airline operator, to see where that alleged competition helps the consumer.
Any motorist knows that the petrol he puts into his tank is exactly the same for all practical purposes, if he is buying the same octane-rating petrol, whatever company it comes from, and I would challenge the Minister of Power to tell us whether his experts can show any difference in quality or in performance between the brands now on sale and provided by the major companies in this country. He knows very well that, in spite of sales talk in advertisements and so on, there is really no significant difference at all. Millions of motorists


—the and I perhaps—are constantly being taken as innocent victims of the oil companies when they allege that a particular magic additive in same brand or another has a particular effect. It is quite untrue. He knows, too, that there is no difference in price.

Mr. F. V. Corfield: Does it affect in any way the quality of petroleum, whether it comes through a pipeline or not?

Mr. Noel-Baker: This is very relevant to the Second Reading debate. We are worried about the whole system for the distribution and retailing of petroleum products, which is intimately affected by the Bill, and we are certainly entitled to try to find out what is in the Government's mind and to say that, though the present system and relationship between the five companies may be in the interests of the oil tycoons who control them, or most of them, it certainly is not in the interests of the ordinary consumer. It is not competition. It is a monopoly position wherein quality, prices and service are identical, and we are being made to pay very much more for the product than we should.
There is a particularly offensive example of the present system which upsets many of my hon. Friends. This is that the oil companies are now in a position where one individual oil company controls 93 per cent. of the retail outlets. Perhaps I did not phrase that very well, but the Minister and hon. Members will appreciate that what I refer to is the terrible growth of the solus site system. Before the war, if a retailer of motor fuel wanted to bring his products to a new point of sale, all he had to do was to install a new pump at an existing garage.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Member, but he should direct his argument even on Second Reading to the Bill under discussion.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I stand corrected, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was trying to illustrate the point that we are worried about this pipeline partly because, if the Bill is adopted as it now stands, there will be a new element in a system of retailing, distributing and importing

petroleum products about which we have very grave doubts. I was under the impression that this question of the solus site arrangement was relevant to the Bill. It it is not in your view, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I will leave the point and come to that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) about the railways.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: Would it not be in order for my hon. Friend to use that as his objection to the Bill? Could he not object to it precisely because it did not cover that point?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his support, as I always am. I hope that he will provide me with many opportunities of returning to that theme, because I hope to do so. At this moment, however, I think I should, with respect to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, turn to the point about the railways.
Many people in the railway industry feel that one solution to the pipeline problem in the United Kingdom, which, incidentally, would solve many of the difficulties which are inherent in the present proposals embodied in the Bill, would be to run new pipelines along railway tracks. The railway system in this country provides a network serving all important industrial points on the map, and it would be a relatively simple matter, from a technical point of view, to install pipelines beside main line railway tracks. In some cases, it might involve a slight increase in mileage, but the problem of installation would be very much simpler than, for example, the problems involved in running the Fawley pipeline across Salisbury Plain through Wiltshire to London Airport. Such a scheme might, incidentally, provide British Railways with a valuable additional source of revenue if some payment were made to them by the interests controlling the pipelines in return for the facility of using the tracks.

Mr. G. Wilson: Has the hon. Member considered the technical difficulties in running an oil pipeline along a railway line when it came to bridges, level crossings and things of that kind? I understand that there are quite considerable technical difficulties.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I have not studied those problems, but I understand that prominent people in British Railways have. They believe that the obstacles involved would not be very much more serious than the obstacles involved in the route to be taken by the line from Fawley to London Airport, which, as the hon. Member knows, the county councils consider to be very formidable indeed.
That brings me to another point which is—

Mr. J. T. Price: I thought that my hon. Friend had given way to me. I am sorry to intervene, but the point which I want to make is quite a serious one. I am not unmindful of the physical arguments about the possibility of laying these pipelines on the route of the railway tracks, but what I am concerned about is whether or not the British Transport Commission would receive by way of wayleaves for the renting of these sites as much as it would lose by way of freights once the oil was diverted from the tankers on the railways to the pipelines beside the rails. That is the important point.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I much appreciate the point which my hon. Friend has made. I understand that that is one of the reasons why the railway people to whom I have been talking are interested in getting the pipeline along the track because that would be one way of compensating them for the non-use of the conventional rail tanker.
I am bound to say that the railway system in this country will be able to make progress only if it can get up to date with modern methods of transportation. There are instances where the transporting of liquids by pipeline is very much more economical and efficient than transporting them by the old conventional methods, even though this may cause some difficulty to my friends in the railway industry.
I want to pass briefly to the concern felt at the proposals in the Bill by the local authorities involved. One of them, my own county council, has been good enough to summarise its views to me. I understand that a list of proposed Amendments and protective Clauses have been submitted by the Parliamentary agents representing these county councils to the agents representing the petroleum

company involved. The negotiations are going on at present and the county councils are under the impression that many of their objections will be met. For that reason I do not refer to all of them in detail. I will, however, mention three of the most important.
One is that as the Bill now stands the company would have the right if it wished to lay a series of pipes perhaps as far apart as 200 feet. Thte county councils consider this to be very excessive and they have proposed an alternative of 5 feet. They believe that perhaps the company may in the end be prepared to accept an area of 20 feet. If we are to have these pipelines taking up to 200 feet of deviation it will be a very serious matter indeed.
Another of the important points made by the county councils is, I understand, that they wish to have a provision that if a pipeline is subsequently to be removed this shall be done at the expense of the company. This seems to me to be an eminently reasonable provision. If these pipelines are to be installed over the route proposed and if the company then wishes to move them, or if they have to be moved for some reason, it would be rather hard if the expense of moving them had to be borne by a local authority.
Finally, I wish to mention one further point which has been raised in negotiations with the Parliamentary Agents of the company. It is that the county councils want the company to be subject to normal planning control in connection with all the works involved. My own county council, Wiltshire, says that it is not as closely affected in this matter as Middlesex will be, where it is proposed that there shall be considerable works above ground, and also as Hampshire will be, where the pipeline will cross land which might be likely to be developed.
It seems to me to be very reasonable indeed that the people who will be constructing the pipelines should be subject to normal planning control, and I hope that perhaps at this stage the Minister will tell us that that is the intention.
I do not conceal from the House that many of my hon. Friends, looking at the issues raised by the pipeline, would much prefer a publicly-owned, properly integrated national pipeline system


throughout the United Kingdom. What is more, looking at the present set-up within the oil industry, particularly as it affects the consumer in this country, many of us think that there is a strong case for a much larger degree of public control and, indeed, a degree of public ownership.
We look at the present situation in the British Petroleum Company, in which 51 per cent. of the shares are owned by the nation, and we wonder whether this principle should not be extended to the other companies, followed by a programme of rationalisation which would get rid of the monopoly position which worries us in connection with oil distribution in general and in connection with the proposals suggested in the Bill.

10.46 p.m.

Mr. F. V. Corfield: I have a particular constituency interest in the Bill, because the Avon-mouth pipeline, which, I understand, is to carry what are known as chemical feedstuffs, is designed to transport chemicals to an Imperial Chemical Industries factory to be built in my constituency. That I.C.I. factory is a welcome and valuable new industry in the area. Therefore, the arguments that hon. Members opposite have been putting forward, covering a rather wide view of fuel policy as a whole, are not altogether apposite concerning this pipeline.
In passing, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) might be interested to know that I can tell him, from experience in my constituency, in which there is a large number of Government pipelines, that whatever else they are, they are not particularly leakproof.
I therefore welcome the general principle of the Bill and I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) that it must be in the national interest to adopt cheaper methods of transport to relieve congestion on the roads. There is something to be said from an amenity viewpoint in getting at least some of our transport facilities as far as possible underground and out of sight.
I also accept the proposition that, having accepted that this is in the national interest, we cannot permit a

position to arise in which any private owner on the route would have a complete veto on the project. I therefore feel that compulsory powers as such must be accepted. There are, however, two important matters that follow from that acceptance. First, it places upon this House an obligation to ensure that both public and private rights that may be affected should be adequately safeguarded. Secondly, the powers of compulsory acquisition contained in the Bill should not be wider than is necessary for the purpose for which the Bill is designed.
The first of those two points is dealt with in the Motion on the Order Paper in my name and I should not wish to weary the House with arguments on it at this stage. Concerning the second point, however, I feel that the Bill contains powers that go much wider than are justified. I draw attention particularly to Clause 18, which enables the company to put down any amount of additional lines within the limits of 400 ft. deviation. I understand that the most the company is likely to want is, possibly, one additional line along the Fawley-Avonmouth route.
If that is so, I hope that minds will be made up quite firmly in Committee and that it will be inserted in the Bill quite clearly how many pipes the company will have a right to lay. I hope that the Committee will have the opportunity of considering in a reasonable degree of detail what is required and what powers are necessary.
The other important Clause which ties in with Clause 18 is Clause 24, which permits the company to sell or lease or otherwise dispose of any of the pipes which it puts down. When I first read the Bill I assumed that this was an effort to obtain powers to put down a series of pipelines and sell them off as a separate enterprise. I am assured that this is not so, but if it is not so the powers are far wider than is necessary.
I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon when he suggests that the probability is that Private Bill procedure is no longer suitable for this type of projects, especially in the context of a period when demand for fuel oil is rapidly increasing and with it the possibility of an equally rapidly developed network of pipelines.


Subject to these reservations, which I think can be met by the method which we shall be discussing later, I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: Like the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) I have a constituency interest in the Bill, but I hope to show that the considerations which affect some of my constituents directly and obviously are also matters of general and public interest. As the House has been informed, in the present circumstances, in the absence of a pipeline, some of the fuel comes by water from Southampton to Purfleet and then by barge up to Fulham. This means that in Fulham there are two depôts of considerable size from which the fuel is distributed by road throughout various parts of London.
One of these two depôts is in my constituency. The other is partly in my constituency and partly in the adjoining constituency. If we may look forward to the time when the pipeline is established, the depôt that is now in my constituency will cease to exist. Rather to my regret, the other one, partly in my constituency and partly in the neighbouring constituency, would still have to be there because the type of fuel with which it deals is not one for which the method of distribution by underground pipeline is suitable.
At any rate, the effect on my constituency would be that one of these depôts would disappear. That would be unquestionably good news to my constituents, the more so as I am assured that there is no risk to the employment of any of my constituents who are now employed in that depôt. Their interests will be looked after. The reason why I say that it is good news is that the distribution of fuel by road means a great deal of heavy traffic. That traffic must necessarily go to the points wherever there are customers who receive the fuel. That cannot be helped. Anyone whose home is in the neighbourhood of a garage or other considerable customer for fuel must accept that fact as an inevitable condition of modern industrial life. But there is also the

concentration of traffic—of lorries coming in and going out of the depôts from which the fuel is distributed over the whole area.
At the present time there is this depôt in Fulham, on the riverside but in and near streets which at one time in their history were quiet residential streets. Over the years, with the steady growth in the consumption of oil and consequent growth in the amount of work done in the depôt, they have become a neighbourhood where a great deal of very heavy traffic plies. The result is partly the noise and the risk from heavy traffic, partly the danger of damage to house property over a long period through the vibrations caused by heavy traffic and partly a certain amount of noise, which is inevitable, from the work of the depôt itself. There is also a certain amount of smell and fouling of the atmosphere.
I think it fair to say that the inquiries which I have made into the matter lead me to believe that the company and the persons directly responsible for the management of the depôt have done their best to reduce these inconveniences to the residents to the minimum to which they can be reduced, but they cannot by any degree of skill be wiped out altogether. A somewhat inept attempt was made by some of the Conservatives in the neighbourhood to say that it was all the fault of the Labour borough council, but my own inquiries have also shown that there is no legal power which any public authority could use to require the depôt to stop doing the things which it is doing at the present time. It is possible, of course, to prevent, legally, an industrial concern from making unnecessary noise, but it is always a defence in legislation of that kind to show that the greatest possible effort is being made to reduce the noise to the minimum. I do not think, therefore, that there was any escape for my constituents to any considerable degree by efforts to mitigate the nuisance. The trouble arose as an essential part of the work of an oil distribution depôt.
When we heard, therefore, that as a result of the laying of the pipeline the work of distribution would now be carried out not from a depôt in Fulham but from a depôt in the area of London Airport, we naturally felt that this was


good news. We might inquire—I did, of course, inquire—what was likely to be the reaction of persons in the neighbourhood of the proposed end of the pipeline near London Airport. I find that the situation there is rather different. The siting of the centre of distribution there will not mean, as it does while it is in Fulham, that there is a great concentration of traffic and noise in what would otherwise be a quiet residential area.
That seems to me to be part of a general public advantage. We are all aware that, whatever the future industrial development of this country may be, two things are fairly certain. One is that the consumption of oil fuel will increase. Whether it will increase proportionately or not with the consumption of other kinds of fuel I am not at the moment discussing, but the absolute amount of consumption of oil fuel will increase. Also, the traffic on our roads will increase.
In those circumstances, I should have thought that if it is possible to devise a way whereby one can transport oil fuel without taking it over the roads or reduce the extent to which it is taken over the roads, that is a general public advantage. That is the immediate effect that will follow from the construction of the pipelines.
I assure my hon. Friends the Members for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) and Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) that I am by no means unsympathetic to a great deal of what they have said. But I would ask them to consider this point. Their argument, as I understand it, was that the growth of the oil industry and the appearance of this method of transporting oil raises a number of arguments of high public policy and ought, if we had in power a Government concerned with the public interest, to be seized as an opportunity for asserting the public interest in certain matters connected with the oil industry, such as pricing policy, the extent to which it is a monopoly, and the whole question of how a network of pipelines should be developed over the country as a whole.
I would, however, say that if we have to wait until the Conservative Party is concerned with the public interest before we begin to modernise the method of distributing oil, we shall have to wait a very long time. Let us consider what

would happen if this Bill were not passed now. It would not follow from that that the Government would do what they ought to do and interest themselves in the whole problem and assert the public interest.
The Conservative Party cannot do that because, as we know, it is paid to do the opposite. A number of Members opposite owe their seats to a propaganda campaign conducted by private interests against public ownership and against the public interest. Consequently, they are not in a position to assert the public interest. The people who paid for the propaganda of the Conservative Party want their money back, and they are going to get it back out of the public purse. That is what we were debating earlier today and yesterday.
It is quite clear, therefore, that if this Bill did not pass we should not get anything effective done in the field of public policy this side of the next General Election. Furthermore, the pipeline, I am convinced, would be laid whether the Bill was passed or not. Let us consider what would be the position if the pipeline were laid without the passing of this Bill.
It would mean that the Esso Company would have to set to work making what terms it could with every landowner on the route. Some of those landowners, of course, are public authorities, and, in view of the way in which Government policy generally has been swindling local authorities, I should not be sorry to see them get a bit back from somewhere. Some of the owners would be widows and orphans, because we know that they always own part of every important piece of property.
Many, however, would be comfortably-off landowners who would be in a position to extract almost any price, in or out of reason, for the concessions the company would get. We would get a levying of a tribute on the company, which, presumably, would ultimately be got back from the consumer, for the benefit of private landowners.
We should notice what happened when the railway system sprang up. It would have been a very great public advantage then if we had had a Government which, seeing the social consequences of the whole thing, had brought the railways into public ownership at


that time. Instead, it was left to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) to announce, in 1918, that it was the intention of the Government of which he was a member to nationalise the railways in the period 1918 to 1922. But the Conservative Party, of course, was again told that it must do what it was paid to do, and we on this side subsequently had to do it a good many years later.

Mr. G. Wilson: Does the hon. Gentleman recollect that as long ago as 1845 there was a Railway Clauses Consolidation Act which dealt with this very problem?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) must be aware that the railway system began substantially before 1845. What I am saying is that it is a very great pity that the whole system was not brought into public ownership then. What happened was that the railways went ahead and had to pay extremely heavy tribute to land owners, something which had been a drawback to railway finance from that day to this.
Whatever view might be taken of the oil industry, I do not see that any useful purpose will be served by subjecting it to the same kind of parasitism.

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: My hon. Friend has produced a very good additional argument for my contention that it would be folly to have totally unplanned competing systems of pipelines run by individual companies. That is what happened with the railway system and that is one of the reasons for its present difficulties. My hon. Friend spoke of land owners holding the oil company to ransom, but there is an answer to that, as he will see if he looks at the map of the route from Fawley to London Airport and considers it in relation to the existing main-cline railway tracks. My solution is not as Utopian as some hon. Members opposite seem to think.

Mr. Stewart: I ask my hon. Friend to direct his attention to the simple and immediate question of what happens whether the Bill is passed or not. The point I am making is that if it is not passed, what will happen is that the pipeline will be laid largely where it is

now proposed that it should be laid, but in a manner in which there will be considerable opportunities for profiteering. I agree that if we had in power a Government who were concerned with the public interest, it would be a totally different problem, but we cannot say that, because we have a Government who are concerned to serve the private and not the public interest, we must therefore resist every process of modernisation in industry.
We must face the fact that the laying of this pipeline, or, at any rate, some method of distributing oil by pipeline rather than by road, is a process of modernisation. With full respect for and giving full weight to what my hon. Friends have said, the problem we have immediately to consider is this: we have an industry in private ownership and a Government who are neither willing nor able to assert the public interest in the matter. In those circumstances, since it is a necessary piece of modernisation to make possible the distribution of oil by pipeline rather than by road traffic, we must in the present situation regard it as desirable that the Bill should have a Second Reading.
I conclude by returning from the general public interest to the particular interest of my constituents. It is a legitimate point for me to make when I say that in a crowded residential area we have a process going on which is totally unsuited to a crowded residential area. Here we have an opportunity to remove something which is a serious social injury to a section of the community and something which, if it persists, will become a more serious injury and will adversely affect a greater number of people.
I hope, therefore, that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading and that, when we consider further Motions on the Order Paper, hon. Members will approach them with a desire to reduce unnecessary obstacles in the way of a construction of the pipeline.

11.9 p.m.

The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Wood): I do not in any way want to frustrate the wishes of hon. Members to take part in the debate, but it might be useful at this moment if I try to state the Government's view of the Bill. It has been pointed out that the Bill covers two


important developments. The Government agree with the view expressed by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), that these projects are not only necessary in the interests of those for whom he was speaking, but highly necessary in the national interest.
I will try to give the reasons why we believe it will be helpful if these developments can take place. First, both pipelines will be of considerable assistance to our home refining industry, which we all recognise as very valuable and would all like to help. Both will enhance the value of the Government's network of pipelines, to which they will be linked. My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) has mentioned the benefits that this will bring in transportation. The pipeline to London Airport will greatly help to keep down the costs and ease the very pressing traffic problems in London. He gave graphic figures—with which I entirely agree—to demonstrate the easement which the London Airport pipeline will exercise on the transport problem in the next four or five years.
A further advantage for the chemical plant in Gloucester is that it looks like being one of the most important industrial developments in the immediate future. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is satisfied that the economies that will accrue to I.C.I. through the use of the pipeline will make an appreciable difference to its export potential. That is another reason why we should welcome this development.
Various matters have been introduced in the debate. The hon. Member for Fulham started an interesting discussion about the possibility of nationalising the railways a hundred years before they were nationalised, and the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) began discussing one of his favourite topics—resale price maintenance—on which we are all glad to hear from him, if not particularly on this occasion. It would not be right for me to try to follow those hon. Members into those wide discussions. On the other side, various detailed points have been raised in the course of the debate, and we all agree that there should be adequate opportunity for discussion of detailed points during the various stages of the Bill.
I will try to explain the view which the Government take in this matter, and it would be inappropriate for me to discuss the details now. One of the important questions which have been discussed this evening, and to which we shall give renewed attention when we discuss the Motions after the Second Reading, is exactly how these points of detail are best to be examined, either in relation to the Bill or in relation to possible pipeline developments in the future. I have already said that I am most anxious that the Bill should be given a Second Reading. Therefore, I hope that I may be allowed to state my view of the Motions which will be discussed shortly, because it might have an effect on the remainder of the discussion on Second Reading.
If, as I hope, the House shortly gives the Bill a Second Reading, we shall discuss two possible proposals by which the House might give greater facilities and provide greater safeguards to any objectors, and might be able to deal with any difficulties that the existing Private Bill procedure does not meet. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) wants to institute a procedure on the basis on the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, and he also wants—as I sense a number of other hon. Members do—an inquiry into the desirability of general public legislation in the matter of these pipelines. On the other hand, the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon suggests that he would be satisfied, if adequate safeguards of objection were available, that they should be provided with the 1946 Act, not as a pattern, but as a general guide.
I have already emphasised the national importance the Government attach to this project. Naturally, I should like to see it carried out with the minimum of delay. There I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Fulham. On the other hand, I am most anxious, as I am sure we all are, that the fullest opportunity should be given for the examination of any difficulties, such as those mentioned in the debate, which may be thought still to exist. Therefore, I should be prepared when the time comes to accept the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon to the Motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for


Gloucestershire, South on the understanding that the Committee would have every regard to the need for speed and avoidance of unnecessary delay. It is my conviction that we should press on with this, and I believe that that is a conviction largely shared by the House.
As to the future, the Government believe that it is most important that an examination should take place on the general problem of pipeline development. In fact, they have already begun to examine this problem and to examine procedures which they think should be followed in future in regard to these matters. I shall undertake to make a further statement to the House when that examination is complete. I hope that the House will be willing shortly to give a Second Reading to the Bill. When the time comes to discuss my hon. Friend's Motion, I hope that he will be willing to accept the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon, which seems to me, and to the Government, to offer the best hope of making speedy progress with this present development while at the same time ensuring that any outstanding objections may be examined.

11.18 p.m.

Mr. Desmond Donnelly: I wish briefly at this late hour, to support what the Minister has said and also what my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) said.
I have no personal direct constituency interest in this matter, but I represent an area which is now fast developing as a very important oil port. As a result, I am now being brought into touch with some of the daily practical problems and especially some of the problems which are likely to arise in future in regard to the oil industry. To that extent, I have some interest in what is likely to happen about pipelines and otherwise in future.
As I see it, there have been three major objections to this Bill this evening. The first was the Objection of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey), who basically did not like oil companies. He liked them even less when they made large profits and less still when they happened to be American. I think that was rather outside the context of the practical prob

lem of what we should do about this particular pipeline.

Mr. Warbey: Mr. Warbey indicated dissent.

Mr. Donnelly: My hon. Friend dissents from that view, but I feel I am equally entitled to the view that we are discussing these pipelines and not the wider industry tonight.
Secondly, there was the abjection of both my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield and my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker), who in turn said very much the same thing. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield referred to the need for a publicly-owned public utility, a national pipeline system. My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon spoke about a publicly-owned, properly integrated pipeline system in this country.
The short point about the present development of the pipeline system is that pipelines at the present stage are likely to be built only from large units of production to large units of consumption, and this place is a very important limiting factor on a national pipelone network. At the present stage, it is difficult to envisage a national pipeline grid, although that may come in time and I very much hope that it will come. Some of the suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon about the possible use of the wayleaves which the railway companies possess may be of advantage in this respect.
There is a whole range of possibilities of the use of pipelines, not only for oil but even for bulk solids. This will begin to be opened up only in the next ten to fifteen years. One of the industries most likely to benefit directly from the expanded use of such a pipeline is the coal industry, which is connected with the constituency of my hon Friend the Member for Ashfield. But at the moment we are concerned with a pipeline from a large unit of production to a large unit of consumption, and there are certain limiting factors, as I have said.
The third objection was voiced by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield), who spoke of the obligation of the House, and the need, to safeguard the public and private rights affected by this venture. I suggest to him that one of the best examples of trying to enable people to safeguard their own private rights is the brochure which


has been issued by the Esso Company entitled, "Facts about the Proposed Esso Pipeline". It is well produced and is an admirable example of clarity.

Mr. Corfield: That pamphlet does not give an accurate representation of the law.

Mr. Donnelly: It is a very accurate representation of what people can achieve in respect of their own land. It is certainly not a legal guidance but it is a very good exercise in enabling people to understand the implications of the pipeline through the hon. Member's constituency. I only wish that the hon. Member took a leaf out of Esso's book and enabled his constituents to understand the implications of his own actions with equal facility.
The hon. Member also referred to the dangers of the compulsory acquisition of land for purposes which were not necessary. He said that wider powers were being taken in the Bill than might strictly be necessary. I suggest that that is basically a Committee point and not fundamental. Indeed, it was implicit in his remarks that he appreciated that it was not necessarily a major obstacle to Second Reading.
As a concluding point, I should like to mention a subject touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham. The importance of oil in the national economy, whatever may happen to other fuels, is bound to grow. This is an important industrial country and it is essential that whatever fuels are made available to our industry should be made available at the cheapest possible cost, because on that will depend the viability of the British economy, the competitive nature of our exports and the whole basis of British industry. If our fuel costs are high, the economy will suffer. unemployment will be created and a very serious problem will arise. Anything which reduces the costs, in particular the handling costs and the capital costs, involved and the burden on other forms of transport systems, such as a pipeline system of this nature, has a very beneficial effect.
Lastly, I would come back to the point which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M.

Stewart) about the need to go wider into the implications of pipelines altogether, and I would say how much I welcome the statement of the right hon. Gentleman tonight, in which he said that he was prepared to undertake a review and to report back to the House.

11.25 p.m.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: I am very glad that my right hon. Friend has given the assurance he has, and I think that at this stage something should be said about the Esso Petroleum Company, particularly after the derogatory remarks which have been made from the other side of the House.
I think we should bear in mind that the crude oil refining capacity of Fawley refinery has grown from 750,000 tons in 1938 to 11·5 million at the end of last year, and that this company has made a considerable contribution to the export trade. In fact it exported approximately £12 million of products last year. It is certainly an English company. The debenture stock of £42 million has been placed here, and also the pension fund aggregating about £23 million has of course been placed in the United Kingdom. Therefore, I think that, from whatever aspect we consider the company, its refining capacity or any other, we can say that it has made a great contribution to our economy.
The question of safeguarding the rights of private landowners, which is troubling my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) is a rather important matter, but let us get the whole thing in the right perspective. In 1957, 1958 and 1959 there were three Acts of Parliament which went through this House with little difficulty. The first affects the pipeline from Milford Haven to Llandarcy which has now been completed. Apart from one gentleman who wrote to The Times, I do not think there has been any objection either to the works or to the compensation which has been paid, and most of that will have been cleared within the next three months.
I think it is quite significant that these matters passed off so well, but perhaps there is one other even better illustration.
If we take the Rotterdam—Ruhr line one has only to refer to the Financial Times of this morning to know that
To build a pipeline they needed some 500 licences from Government, municipal and other bodies and negotiated all rights of way with 2,500 landowners in Holland and Germany.
When one bears in mind that this line runs 185 miles as opposed to the total length of about 140 miles for the line under consideration, one would not have thought it would not be extremely difficult to obtain those accommodations. It is worth observing that the Petroleum Times on 17th June said that
Negotiations with landowners were carried to a successful conclusion, on an entirely voluntary basis without recourse either to compulsory acquisition or similar measures.
I think that it is rather important to stress that with a very important crude oil line which goes through the central part of Western Europe, and which affects a large number of landowners, negotiations should have been brought about voluntarily with the people concerned. There is no evidence either of profiteering by individuals or of trampling on private rights, and, while I sympathise indeed with some of the suggestions put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South, I say that this must be looked at in correct perspective. I hope that the Bill will be given a Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: I beg to move,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to include provision to ensure that all coins, relics, articles of value or antiquity and structures and other remains or things of geological or archaeological interest discovered on the lands or in the process of the works authorised by the Bill shall be deemed to be the absolute property of the Minister of Works, and that the promoters take reasonable precautions to prevent the workmen of the promoters or their contractors or any other persons from removing or damaging any such article or thing and upon discovery thereof, and before removal to acquaint the Minister of Works of such discovery and to carry out at the expense of the promoters the Minister's orders as to the disposal of the same.
This Instruction deals with disturbance to antiquities, and I hope that, even if the political arguments I was using a

short while ago do not appeal to the Minister, this aspect of the matter will. I am sure that he will appreciate that Wiltshire is a county containing very many extremely important finds. I have often raised in the House matters connected with the Great Stone Circle at Avebury and the Roman roads. I see that the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works is in his place. The House will recall that he has taken part in debates in the past on this subject.
Wiltshire is a very historic county. It has many valuable antiquities within its boundaries, and no doubt there are very important ones still underground. Several learned bodies and many people concerned with the preservation of antiquities have expressed grave anxiety about the provisions of the Bill. This is the reason prompting us to move this Instruction, which we very much hope the Minister will be able to accept. Failing that, we hope that he will give us an assurance which will allay some of the anxieties which are very deeply felt.
There must be many remains of value still undiscovered underground along the route of the pipeline. It will cut through two Roman roads and go close to other existing and valuable sites. We ask, therefore, that provision should be made for looking after these things. I understand that it is common nowadays to include a Clause relating to such discoveries in most public contracts, and it seems logical that similar provision should be made in the Bill. In view of the hour, I shall not detain the House further. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give satisfaction not only to hon. Members who take an interest in these matters and to myself but to the very many people in Wiltshire and elsewhere who believe them to be of great importance.

11.33 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Harmar Nicholls): At the Ministry of Works we appreciate very much any interest which is taken to preserve archeological finds in this country, and we have much sympathy with the spirit behind the Motion which the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) has moved. I am sorry that we cannot, for procedural and practical reasons, accept


it as it stands. I think I can, however, do the other thing which the hon. Member asks me to do.
I can give a clear assurance that should allay any apprehensions which the hon. Member may have that the excavations which will take place in the construction of the pipeline are likely to rob us of any archaeological finds or treasure trove which may be in the way. I assure him that the Esso Company could not have been more co-operative than it has been. We are absolutely satisfied that it is prepared to co-operate all along the line, ensuring that any likely finds, be they archaeological or anything in the nature of loose finds or treasure trove, will be properly cared for, and the company will give us and the museums an opportunity to step in and look after them.
The reason why we do not want to accept, and could not accept, the Motion in the words appearing on the Order Paper is that it would give to the Ministry of Works ownership of the finds. This would mean that in just one narrow sector we should be taking on an ownership which we have not in any other part of the country where archeological diggings have gone on or any finds have been made.
I can give the hon. Member full assurance that we are satisfied that the interests he has in mind will be looked after. Indeed, already by negotiation, as a result of words I had with the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher), we have arranged a re-routing of the pipeline in order to avoid the particularly well-known spots which I know the hon. Member has in mind. I am certain that it would not be a good thing, on this very narrow sector, to give to the Ministry an ownership which it has not hitherto had.
Through the coroner's court on treasure trove and through the inspection we intend to give to the excavations in connection with archeological finds which may be in the way, I am quite certain that the main interest which the hon. Member and his hon. Friend had in mind will be well looked after. I assure him that we are with him in the spirit of what he has said, and we intend to carry out with care what he would have us do in order to protect

these finds. I hope that, with that assurance, he will feel able to withdraw the Motion.

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: In view of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, and as I do not wish to press the Instruction, thank him for the assurance that he has given and beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Ordered,
That, if the Examiner shall report that the Standing Order not previously inquired into has been complied with, the Bill shall be committed to a Select Committee of Nine Members, Five to be nominated by the House, and Four by the Committee of Selection.

Ordered,
That the promoters of the Bill may be heard in favour of the Bill by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents.

Ordered,
That all Petitions against the Bill be referred to the Committee and that such of the Petitioners as pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel or Agents, be heard against the Bill, if they think fit.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records.

Ordered,
That Five be the Quorum.—[Mr. Corfield.]

11.38 p.m.

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee to amend the Bill in such a manner as will ensure that the safeguards to the interests of owners, lessees and occupiers of land likely to be affected are similar to and no less effective than those available under the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, and that the interests of the public bodies referred to in paragraph 12, Part II, First Schedule to the Water Act, 1945, are similarly protected; and to inquire whether general public legislation relating to the laying, maintenance and operation of pipelines is desirable, and to report thereon to the House.
I have already referred this evening to the need, as I see it, to insert safeguards for bath the public and the private interests that are likely to be affected. In my view, that is a corollary of the granting of compulsory powers of acquisition, and I believe that it is particularly necessary when we are giving these powers to a private company as opposed to a public body responsible to Parliament.
It is significant in this connection that the House has deemed it right to devise relatively elaborate safeguards where compulsory powers are exercised by


public authorities. Generally speaking, these safeguards are contained in the compulsory purchase order procedure which is laid down in the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946.
In the ordinary case it is a public general Act, such as the Housing Act and the planning Acts, which confers the compulsory powers, and the actual identification of the land is left to the compulsory purchase order procedure. That procedure provides for notices to be sent to owners, occupiers and lessees and provides an opportunity to such persons to object and for their objections to be heard either at an informal hearing or perhaps, more usually, at a public inquiry where that is more appropriate.
That has to be done before a compulsory purchase order is confirmed and it is only then that the public authority, whether it be a local authority or a Government Department, can exercise its compulsory powers. It has to be admitted, I think, that the Private Bill procedure with which we are here concerned does not readily admit those particular types of safeguards. It is very frequently the practice in local authority Bills to incorporate the 1946 Act and to include those safeguards in that way. But in this type of Bill, which confers both the powers of compulsory acquisition and notifies the land, it is not easy to incorporate the 1946 Act provisions.
We have to realise that once the Bill becomes an Act the alterations which could be made to the route, however valid were the objections to any part of the route, are very limited indeed. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) upheld this document as an admirable bit of safeguarding of private interests. On page 7, we are told that
All owners and occupiers of property will be visited by representatives of the company or their agent to plan the exact route of each pipeline. We can assure you we shall be pleased to consider any suggested deviation to the proposed route which is practical.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that perhaps I had not made my intentions clear to my constituents, and therefore I will take this opportunity of warning those who read the debate not to be misled by that paragraph. The fact is that, however valid is the objection, the company will not be able to move its pipe

line outside the deviation of 200 ft. of the line drawn on the map. It may be argued that once the pipe is completed it will make very little difference to the use to which the land can be used and that valid objections are not likely to arise.
Why I think that it is as well to remember that the Bill provides a prohibition against building over the pipeline at all is that, quite clearly, that can affect very considerably the value of the land in the event of it becoming at any time in the future ripe for development and receiving planning permission for development. Clearly, valid agricultural interests can arise when there are good reasons why a farmer or landowner should wish the pipeline to go along the headland of a field instead of across the middle. For instance, where a field has been tile-drained, the digging of a 3-ft. or 4-ft. ditch across the middle of a field is difficult to replace in such a way that the tiles will drain the field. There are good reasons, therefore, why a farmer should be able to say that he does not mind the pipeline crossing his land but he wants it deviated that distance.
In these days, the size of fields, particularly in Wiltshire and the southern part of Gloucestershire, is generally relatively large—for example, 18–25 acre fields. In many cases, ability to deviate 200 ft. will not get the pipeline substantially nearer to the headland than if the line as drawn is adhered to. There should, therefore, be a means of hearing these minor objections along the route and enabling the company to meet them, which it cannot do, however willing it professes to be, under the provisions of the Bill if it is passed into law in this form.
Clause 14 gives an idea of the wide public interest that will be affected. What is much more important in a project of this nature, however, is the danger of leaks. On page 7, the pamphlet states:
The possibility of any leakage is, therefore, very remote. However, should this occur, compensation would be paid for any damage sustained and you will be indemnified against any third party claim arising from it.
If it is necessary to put that in this document, it is surely necessary to pay regard to the danger of a leak to the public services, and particularly water


undertakings. That is why, in the Instruction, we have incorporated the various bodies that are mentioned in the First Schedule to the Water Act, 1945, which are the bodies primarily concerned with matters of water supply and which could be seriously affected if there was a leak in either of the pipes.
It may also be argued that the Private Bill procedure to some extent provides safeguards, but I regard that as only partially true. Certainly, the promoters and opponents can be heard on petition, but petition against a Private Bill is an extremely expensive undertaking. Even such large bodies as the National Farmers' Union hesitate to undertake this sort of expense. Even if they did, they could not possibly represent the interests of each farmer all the way along the two routes of approximately 75 miles each and in a way that would be able to take into account the objections and demands for small deviations such as I have mentioned. On petition, it would be possible to make objections of a general type only, which would not give the opportunity to the small man to state his case.
The object, therefore, of the Instruction is simply to permit the ordinary safeguards which would be applicable to a public undertaking exercising compulsory powers to be made applicable to this exercise of compulsory powers by a private company. Furthermore, because pipelines, as several hon. Members have said, are likely to become more common, as they have done in other countries, the House should have the opportunity of considering whether it is not time to introduce a general code covering the laying of pipelines—a sort of Oil Pipelines Clauses Act, similar to what has been done in the past for railways, canals, roads, electricity undertakings and the like. If that is the proper way of going about it, clearly the House should consider the type of Act of that nature which should cover this procedure.
I understand that Standing Orders governing Private Business, and particularly Standing Order No. 175, would not permit the House on a Bill of this sort to pass a wide Instruction to the Committee which would allow it to insert these safeguards as the Bill is already drawn. It is for that reason that we have chosen this idea of a special Select Committee. I hope that it will not be out of

order in this connection if, in passing, I paid tribute to the enormous assistance that I have had from the Clerks in the Private Bill Office. I should like also to take the opportunity of apologising to them for the innumerable times that I have interrupted them in the last four days when clearly they have had other work to do.
I am sure 'that this procedure, although relatively rarely used—I think that it 'has been used nine times in the last fifty years—is the appropriate procedure for a Bill of this sort and one whereby the wider issues which ought to be considered can be considered. The Instructions simply insert the safeguards which are absolutely similar to those in the 1946 Act, but because that Act was mainly concerned with occupiers and lessees and owners of the land to be acquired under that Act, it has been necessary to include those other undertakings of a public nature which are likely to be affected by this Bill.
The other argument which my right hon. Friend has put forward is that a complete following of the 1946 provisions, including that for a public inquiry, might introduce inordinate delay. Although I should be perfectly willing to accept the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave), leaving it to the Committee to have a wide discretion about the actual safeguards to be inserted, and to accept my right hon. Friend's undertaking to have a Government inquiry about provisions in the wider field that should be applicable in the future, I hope that it will not be taken by the Committee that public inquiry is to be ruled out in all cases. In many cases it may be the only appropriate method of safeguarding interests and of dealing with specific objections that may arise.
I am less impressed by my right hon. Friend's urge not to cause delay than I am by the rest of his arguments. In the first place we must remember that the sole purpose of the Avonmouth line is to feed the I.C.I. factory that I have already mentioned. I.C.I. first started to acquire land in Gloucestershire three years ago. If it has delayed in deciding what chemical it wants to bring or how to bring it, or if the delay is the fault of the Esso Petroleum Company, that is unfortunate but it is no justification for


demanding of the House that its procedure should be influenced in any way by the fact that delay has occurred, or for asking us to allow the riding over of interests which otherwise we would not allow because of a delay which is entirely in the hands of the directors of these two companies.
As for the pipeline to London Airport, no doubt the delay may again be unfortunate. No doubt the company may not be able to fulfil its obligations to its customers, as it puts it. That means that it may lose some customers to Shell whose pipeline was laid some years ago and which perhaps was more fortunate in the Members for the constituencies through which it was laid. I cannot believe that the danger of Esso losing customers to Shell should seriously influence the House of Commons in altering what it believes to be the right procedure.

Mr. G. Wilson: I think my hon. Friend has failed to appreciate that the delay would cause inconvenience to the people of London by causing additional tanker traffic which could not be met by the existing pipeline.

Mr. Corfield: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention, but I have no evidence at all that the Shell pipeline is working to full capacity.
I believe that these safeguards are right and that it is right that we should make efforts to ensure that they are written into the Bill. It would be wrong to allow the Bill to pass without them. I further believe that, as I am advised, the method adopted by way of the Motion and Instruction is that most appropriate and suitable for the purpose.

Mr. M. Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman clear up this point? He said that the company could not, even if it would, deviate more than 200 feet from the line laid down. But if it is dealing with a land owner who says "I do not mind your pipeline coming but I should like it a quarter of a mile this side or that", is there anything to prevent the land owner and the company voluntarily agreeing upon that and the company not using its powers of compulsory acquisition?

Mr. Corfield: The hon. Member will appreciate that once one deviates a quarter of a mile one will eventually come up against somebody who will not agree and the compulsory powers will be necessary, and for that purpose one has to get back into the 400 foot channel. Unless the land owner will agree about the land to be used for the deviation or bringing the pipeline bank again, it will be an impossible undertaking except for a rare piece of luck.

11.52 p.m.

Mr. Neave: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Instruction, to leave out from "ensure" to the end of the Question and to insert instead thereof:
adequate safeguards to the interests of owners lessees and occupiers of land likely to be affected, bearing in mind the provisions of the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, and to the interests of the public bodies referred to in paragraph 12, Part II, First Schedule to the Water Act, 1945".
In view of the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire. South (Mr. Cot-field), in which he apparently accepted my Amendment. I move the Amendment formally.

Amendment agreed to.

Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Ordered,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee to amend the Bill in such a manner as will ensure adequate safeguards to the interests of owners lessees and occupiers of land likely to be affected, bearing in mind the provisions of the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act. 1946, and to the interests of the public bodies referred to in paragraph 12, Part II, First Schedule to the Water Act, 1945.

SUPPLY

Again considered in Committee.

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Original Question again proposed,

Mr. Percivall Pott: Mr. Percivall Pott (Devizes) rose—

It being after Ten o'clock The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVERS' FOUNDATION

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Statement of the Estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and Travers' Foundation for the year ending on 31st March, 1961, which was laid before this House on 26th May, be approved.—[Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing.]

11.55 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: In previous years we have had a short but interesting debate on these Accounts, and I think that the results of those debates have been a help in the running of the school. We have at least, I believe, achieved some things, though not altogether what we would want. In view of the time, I do not propose to take very long, but there are one or two matters which are worthy of attention.
This year, the estimated income for the Greenwich Hospital is up by £40,000. The great bulk of that results from a large increase in dividends and interest and also a large increase in the Royal Hospital School receipts. The interest and dividends are up by £17,500 if we include the Reade Foundation investments. We welcome this. It flows, of course, from the changes in investment policy made by the management during recent years, changes which have been welcomed generally by both sides of the House.
The other increase is in the Royal Hospital School receipts. Of that sum, an increase of almost £16,000, an estimated increase in fees accounts for £12,600. I presume that this is due to the increase in the fees which the hon. Gentleman the Civil Lord of the Admiralty announced in the closing speech of our last debate. He announced it after Members on both sides had said that they would like to see the fees reduced—indeed, gradually abolished altogether if possible.
The increase last year was from £72 to £100 per pupil. It is interesting to notice that in two years there has been an increase in fees from an actual receipt of £21,000 to estimated receipts this year of £51,000. That is an enormous increase from fees alone in a period of two years.
I have two questions to ask the Civil Lord. Firstly, in view of this very big

increase in the fees from £72 to £100, is the school still obtaining the same cooperation from local authorities that, we have been told, it obtained in the past. In other words, are the local authorities still willing to contribute towards this very large increase? Secondly, as a result of this increase, has there been any change in the type of pupil attending the school—by which I mean, of course, is there any increase in the number of sons of officers attending the school?
During past debates, I have expressed fears on the question of orphan children and their rights at the school lest the school should tend to become more and more the preserve of sons of officers. I said last year, before I had heard of the increase from £72 to £100, that I thought that the previous increase might tend to bring about conditions in which there would be more sons of officers attending than sons of seamen and marines. Has that taken place and can we have some assurance that the Management Committee is alive to this issue and taking steps to prevent it? If that happened, there would undoubtedly have been a radical departure from the purpose for which the school was originated.
I notice that in the Royal Hospital School receipts there is also an increase in the sum received from the Minister of Education—a very small increase, I am bound to say—of from £1,485 to £2,640. I do not know how the increase has been worked out and why it appears in this year's estimates. In past years we have stressed our belief that the Minister of Education should contribute much more than he does towards the upkeep of these students.
X Even at the figure of £2,640. the Minister of Education still contributes only about £4 per boy out of a total cost of keeping a boy at this school of £335. That is a very small amount, indeed, and compares most unfavourably with the amounts given by the Government to other private schools to maintain pupils. It was mentioned during last year's debate that certainly in Scotland, because the independent schools were likely to suffer as a result of the introduction of the block grant and the refusal of local authorities to contribute towards the schools, the Government introduced special regulations to ensure that there would not be a loss and to assist independent schools to meet the costs.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: They gave 60 per cent.

Mr. Willis: My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) says that it was 60 per cent. of the grant. Why should there be that very favourable treatment of one type of fee-paying school and this niggardly approach by the Minister of Education towards the maintenance of this school for the sons of men who have served in the Royal Navy? It is unjustified and in last year's debate hon. Members from both sides of the House forcefully expressed the opinion that the Minister of Education—and, I suggested, the Secretary of State for Scotland—should contribute towards the upkeep of this school. If that had been done, there would have been no need to charge a fee of £100 for the maintenance of a boy at this school.
The first thing to be noticed on the expenditure side is that there has been a welcome increase in the amount spent on pensions—£2,000 in the case of officers and £10,000 in the case of seamen and marines. Previously, there was a great deal of disquiet on both sides of the House about the decreasing amount spent on providing pensions for the widows of seamen and officers.
I welcome the present increase and would like to have some indication from the hon. Member as to the number of beneficiaries there are at present—how many widows, seamen and officers respectively. I think he gave those figures last year, but at any rate we should have them this year because I understand that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hull, East (Commander Pursey) wishes to say something about pensions, and I have no doubt that he will be glad to have the breakdown of the figures.
There is also an increase in wages and salaries, and a welcome increase in the amount spent on repairs and maintenance, which is up by £14,000. Perhaps the hon. Member can tell us how this is being spent. Are we at last going to get modern kitchens? How long will it take to provide them? This question has been raised over and over again in these debates. Has anything been done to provide better science laboratories? I raised this question last year, and pointed out that up-to-date

and adequate science laboratories are essential in a school of this character, in which some of the boys will require a good deal of scientific training.
Those are the only points I wish to raise on the Accounts tonight, but I should like to express our appreciation of the work done by the staff of the school, and also the Management Committee in running it. This is undoubtedly a very fine school, and the House has often said that it wants to see its traditions maintained. This needs to become almost a show school. The Navy deserves that. We are indebted to the people who run it, sometimes under very great difficulties, as those who have been there know. They frequently have to fight rather a tough battle against rising costs, in the light of the amount of money available.

12.7 a.m.

Miss Joan Vickers: This is the third year in which I have had the opportunity to speak in this debate. I always welcome a debate on this subject. In the last debate the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) said that we always welcomed a new Parliamentary Secretary, and that the unfortunate thing was that when next we debated these Accounts we should probably have another. I am glad, however, to see that we have not another one today, and I want to thank the Civil Lord for the way in which he always helps us in these debates, and to say that we are glad that he is here tonight.
I take an interest in this school, having had a number of boys from Devon-port in it, and having had the opportunity to visit it. I realise that the fees will now be up by about £40 a boy, and I should like to know how this increase will be spent. What is the reason for putting up the fees? I see that already we have had to spend extra on maintenance, and the provision of stores, books and stationery in the past year. This year we were £7,485 over our estimate, and last year we exceeded it by £11,000. Perhaps my hon. Friend will be able to tell us whether we shall be able to keep within this year's estimate.
On page 3 of the Accounts there is a reference to stocks sold during the year. This comes within the question of cost and I thought, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that


I might mention it. May I ask if we are not discussing the Accounts of the Travers' Foundation?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): The position is that only the Statement before the House can be discussed, and not the Accounts.

Miss Vickers: I thank you for your Ruling, and I shall leave that matter to another time.
I always think it would be interesting to have a statement of the actual work of the boys. We have not always the opportunity of visiting this school. If we could have an account of the number taking the G.C.E. and the type of careers they are undertaking, that would be extremely useful. We are passing this Statement of Estimated Income and Expenditure with no knowledge of the benefit the boys are receiving, as we have no form of report on that.
I support what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) said about the kitchens. I spoke about this last year. I should like to know if they are being improved and also if the central stove has been removed. I never thought it hygienic to have that in the middle of the kitchen. Has the variety of the good been improved? Is more money spent per boy on food? I ascertained last year that the individual boys were healthy, but I drew attention to the fact that less was spent on food per boy than in the majority of schools of this kind. I think that good food, well served, adds greatly to the enjoyment of life.
I should like to know about the Hospital. I asked about this last year, because I found a very adequately equipped Hospital when I visited the school and I undestood that it was not being used at all. I suggested that the instruments and so on might be sold, or given away to charity. I should like to know if action has been taken on that because, if the instruments are left unused, they will deteriorate and no one will have any benefit.
I say to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East that I am delighted that the Ministry of Education has at last put up the grant.

Mr. Willis: Not by very much.

Miss Vickers: No, but it is something; it is a step forward. We should be grateful for that fact.
I have always been worried about the question of cutting timber and I see that again over £4,000 worth of timber has been cut. Probably that was on the northern estates, but I should like an assurance that every consideration is given before the timber is cut.
I wish to mention the question of rents of building lent to the R.N. College. I notice that they still remain at £13,870. I congratulate my hon. Friend on getting other rents up by about £2,700, a point to which I drew attention last year. I should like further information on the question of pensions to widows. I believe that the estimate is £6,680 and I gather that we did not spend the full amount of £9,451 last year. I should like to know whether there is any demand for this or if the reason why we did not spend the full amount was that the end of the financial year came before it had been expended.
Last year one of my hon. Friends suggested that it might be a good idea to spend a larger amount on individual pensions, perhaps pay fewer and give more benefit to the individual person. I should like to know if the Government will follow that policy or continue the present policy.
There is a reference to
Greenwich Hospital Pensions to Officers and Grants towards the Education of Children",
including Canada Educational Grants. I should be grateful for some information about the Canada Educational Grants. What are they? Is the sum of £21,000 sufficient to contribute towards the education of these children?

12.16 a.m.

Commander Harry Pursey: I have no reason to apologise for rising to address the House on this important business of Greenwich Hospital at this time. The responsibility for the fact that the debate is held at this hour lies wholly on the Government for so arranging today's business, but I will say no more about that.
Greenwich Hospital is a £3 million institution with an annual income of £326,000 which provides a considerable


number of pensions and education benefits which should be available to hundreds of thousands of ex-Service officers and men, particularly disabled persons, their wives and children, but the greater number of men have little or no knowledge of the benefits and how to obtain them.
My first criticism, however, is that the estimates now before the House do not give a clear picture of what receipts are for what and what expenditure is for what, mainly because the Royal Hospital School Accounts are mixed up with the pension accounts when there should be a separate account for the school receipts and expenditure so that we can see what is the position of the two funds. I have consulted a chartered accountant, and he informs me that one can get as many variations as one wishes from these documents. In fact, if one could set the figures to music one could get two different tunes on one record—on one side "Rule Britannia" and, on the other side "A Life on the Ocean Wave".
My first duty, however, is to declare my interest in the debate. I made my maiden speech on this subject fifteen years ago at 1 a.m.—and we are not much earlier today; but let me add that I have not spoken on this subject for seven years, and for years I have not spoken after 10 p.m.
Three generations of my family have been interested in Greenwich Hospital, altogether for over a hundred years. My grandfather was a private in the Royal Marines in the Crimean War. He was invalided out with a pension of 6d. a day because of a rifle wound in his right hand, not from the enemy but from his own blunderbuss. My father was an able seaman. He had the option of an operation or invaliding. He declined the operation and was given no pension. I was entered in the Royal Hospital School, and before I left I was offered an operation or invaliding. I accepted the operation and it was done in the Seamen's Dreadnought Hospital on the Royal Naval College site. I have therefore had fifty years, man and boy.
Unfortunately, the records of the old school were destroyed and I cannot check up on how I got in or what was my record. To refresh my memory about the buildings and the sites, last Thursday

I visited the old school and the Royal Naval College. The Civil Lord has so far given the House no information. I do not complain of that, but it means that I must briefly sketch in some salient points to show the reasons for my later arguments, criticisms and suggestions for reform.
There are two large sites at Greenwich, the Royal Naval College site and the old Greenwich Royal Hospital School site. Both were Royal Palace sites. In 1694, William and Mary founded Greenwich Hospital by Royal charter. I have a copy here with me. So we have three centuries of experience with frequent reference to irregularities perhaps better described as defalcations.
There were five original objects of which three concern us today and which can be stated briefly as follows: first, relief and support of Royal Naval seamen incapable of further service and unable to maintain themselves; secondly, sustenance of widows; thirdly, maintenance and education of children—in both cases, of seamen happening to be slain or disabled during sea service.
The second palace, that is, on the college site, was to be completed
as a retreat for seamen disabled in the service of their country.
In fact. it was the naval equivalent of the present Chelsea Hospital for Army living-in pensioners, and in 1814 accommodated 2,710 men. It will be interesting to know whether 2,710 men are now receiving benefits from Greenwich Hospital.
It should be noted that originally the hospital was for seamen only. There is no mention of officers in the charter. Officers were, however, appointed to run the hospital. Funds were provided from several sources, from the King and other people of importance, from prize money and bounty, Parliamentary grants, from smugglers' fines, a lottery, and various estates, including Greenwich Market. So we have the estates referred to in the present Estimates. The north of England estates were taken by the Crown after the execution. The Civil Lord should note this, because someone once said that the fear of the loss of one's head causes one furiously to think, or words to that effect.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing): "Concentrates the mind wonderfully."

Commander Pursey: Very likely. I should not like the Civil Lord to lose the job by virtue of the loss of the Greenwich Hospital or Royal Hospital School.
After nearly two centuries of existence, in 1865 the number of in-pensioners in the hospital had dropped to 1,400 and it was desired to convert the hospital into an infirmary with out-pensioners. An attempt was made by Act of Parliament to bribe the resident pensioners to leave with an offer of an additional 5d. to the pension of those of 55 and more and 9d. to those above 70 years of age. This attempt failed. A second attempt four years later, in 1869, with a better offer, was successful.
In 1873, by Act of Parliament the hospital buildings were appropriated for the Royal Naval College, but they were to be available as a hospital for seamen if again required for such purpose. The Admiralty was then to pay a rent of only £100 a year to Greenwich Hospital. In 1892 a Select Committee of this House was appointed to inquire into Greenwich Hospital age pensions and how to increase them. Recommendations included an increase of Admiralty rent from £100 to £5,000, but I believe it was put up to £6,500.
I understand that there has been no Select Committee since, and after nearly seventy years I suggest that it is high time for another Select Committee to be appointed to inquire into the ramifications of this £3 million empire and to bring these disbursements more into line with modern requirements and also the original objects of the first charter.
In May, 1909—which is more in my time—the Admiralty produced what was called a "Memorandum on Greenwich Hospital" for the then Liberal First Lord of the Admiralty, Mr. Reginald McKenna. I have my own copy of it here, but I ought not to be asked how I obtained it because at the time I was only an able seaman and had not yet become the friend of First Lords of the Admiralty. There is no copy of this Admiralty document in the House of Commons Library—I do not complain about that; I merely make the point—yet it is an important document from which hon. Members could obtain information.
The memorandum gives a fairly full account of two centuries of history and

it gives also a detailed list of the estates, stocks, loans, Parliamentary grants and other receipts. Also, it gives the Greenwich Hospital livings held by chaplains of the Royal Navy at that date. There is no mention of these livings in either the estimates or the Accounts, and I ask the question: have they been disposed of or not? More important is a full list of pensions with details and also the percentages in which the income was appropriated to the several purposes of the Hospital. These were: seamen and marines, 87 per cent.; officers, 4¾ per cent.; estates, 4¼ per cent.; Admiralty administration, 2¼ per cent.; Painted Hall, chapel and cemetries, 1 per cent.; surplus income, ¾ per cent.
Will the Civil Lord please state what are the percentage appropriations today? I suspect that the percentage for seamen and marines is far below the 87 per cent. of 1909 and the expenses are very much higher. This is one of the several questions I put to the hon. Gentleman in a letter setting out some of the points I intended to raise in this debate in order to give him an opportunity to give hon. Members the answers when he replied.
Fifty years have elapsed since that memorandum was produced. A new and up-to-date version is long overdue. Will the Civil Lord arrange for a new one to be produced for the information of Parliament which votes some of the money and for the use of hon. Members?
I appreciate that, since the end of the war in 1945, various revisions have been made in Greenwich Hospital pensions and the regulations by two or three statutory Orders and one short Act of Parliament. I have copies with me. I doubt that these alterations have given much advantage to the seamen. For example, the widow's pension of 10s. 6d. per week is limited to 150 cases, and I assume that thousands are eligible. I believe that the system of fixed rates and numbers for officers has been discontinued, and the number is now at the discretion of the Admiralty, to the maximum of £100. The new arrangements have made a complete mystery of these pensions. Previously, officers knew the amounts and they knew the officers who held them because one could find out by indications in the Navy List. Now, no one knows. It is all hush-hush,


and this hush-hush business should be abandoned.
I come now to the estimates before the House tonight. They are for 1960–61 and are compared with 1959–60. The Accounts, on the other hand, are for 1958–59, ending at 31st March, 1959. Why cannot the Admiralty produce Accounts for 1959–60 two months after the end of the financial year instead of Accounts for a year ago?
Income is mainly derived from securities valued at over £3 million in the north of England, Greenwich and elsewhere. Income receipts are £326,000, and expenditure is £310,000, with a balance of £16,000. A lot of questions can be asked about the purchase and sale of securities and properties. What is the explanation of the loss of some £88,000 on the sale of British Government securities which cost £378,000 and which were sold for £290,000? This loss is greater than the total sum paid in pensions, which is only £65,000.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: I am trying to follow the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I am grateful for the advice which he gave me earlier, but may I ask him whether he is referring to the Accounts or to the statement before the House at the moment?

Mr. William Ross: The Civil Lord should know.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I know perfectly well what I am doing. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is quoting a figure of £88,000 which I cannot find. If he will tell me where he finds it I shall be able to follow what he is saying.

Commander Pursey: I believe that this is one of the figures which I gave the hon. Gentleman in the information that I sent him, though it may not have been. However, if it is a question of saving him time in looking for something in his own document then I must do it. On page 4 of the document it shows cash paid £378,000 and cash received £290,000, and my Royal Hospital School arithmetic makes that a loss of £88,000. Admittedly, it is in the Accounts, but then I can get the information from somewhere else. One would naturally assume that the Civil Lord responsible for the transactions would have the two documents in the House with him.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I wonder whether I could help the House by stating what I believe the position to be? The House is considering the estimated income and expenditure of Greenwich Hospital for the year ending 31st March, 1961, as compared with the financial year just concluded. The accounts for past years are not within the scope of the present debate. These accounts have been reported on by the Committee of Public Accounts in its third Report of last Session and it would be possible to debate this subject in Committee of Supply, but not, I think, to debate it now. I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will take note of that.

Commander Pursey: Of course, I defer to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but on previous occasions—I believe that I have not spoken on this subject for seven years—we were always allowed to refer to the two documents, basing our main arguments, admittedly, on the Estimates. But when it comes to the question of figures, a considerable number of them are in the two documents and in round figures they are probably much the same.
I took the opportunity to go through my notes to estimate figures, as far as I was able, the figures where they happen to be accounts figures. I regret that I have transgressed in omitting to change these figures over. I have turned all these figures which have a bearing on the Estimates into approximate figures. From the point of view of taking expenses on estates, there has been an occasion where £28,000 was taken out of the capital account when there was an excess of receipts in the income account of £16,000.
As regards the amount of pensions, grants, etc., without giving the details for officers, Rotely Bequest, seamen, etc., they are about £80,000 and the expenses paid out are about £60,000, which means that the expenses equal about 75 per cent. of the pensions paid. However, I will leave these financial mysteries and other similar conundrums for other hon. Members to try to deal with.
Tonight, I am concerned about the properties. The north of England receipts—I will take them if I can from the current estimates—are £38,000 and the expenditure £25,000. That is considerably high expenditure, for which I


do not have the ratio at the moment. In Greenwich, the estimate is £51,000 and the expenditure £14,000, which is about one-third. For the other properties, the estimate is £29,000 and the expenditure only £1,300. I am now quoting from pages 2 and 3 of the Statement of Estimated Income and Expenditure.
Surely there must be something wrong here, especially in the expenses for the north of England properties. The total payments for properties and headquarters at the Admiralty are, in round figures, £50,000, which, again, is over 75 per cent. of the payments for pensions. Several important questions arise about these properties. Should the north of England properties be sold and the money invested for better results? Greenwich properties are a different matter, because there are naval pensioners who should occupy living accommodation, for example, Royal Naval College and the National Maritime Museum staff.
Who are the tenants of Greenwich Hospital living accommodation? By whom is it allocated, and on what grounds? What is the number of naval pensioners employed at the Royal Naval College? I understand that the college has difficulty in obtaining staff—for example, stewards and cooks for the officers mess—and that it has to employ young men from the employment exchange who are there today and gone tomorrow and ought to be gainfully employed elsewhere.
Naval ratings are pensioned after twenty-two years' service at the age of 40, when they have 15 or more years of working life. They would settle down and remain at the college. Obviously, pensioners should be employed there as far as possible. Certainly, the Admiralty, under the Disabled Persons Act, should be a model employer of disabled ex-ratings, particularly in buildings originally built for them.
Is the problem one of accommodation? If so, the Admiralty has the accommodation in Greenwich Hospital property if properly allocated. In addition to the previous accommodation, there was accommodation occupied by the school staff before they were moved out to Suffolk, admittedly some years ago. At the museum last Thursday, I saw young men as custodians of the picture and other rooms. Again, this should be a job for disabled Greenwich Hospital

pensioners or other disabled ex-naval men. There are some rebuilt Greenwich Hospital houses in King William Street, alongside the college, with the crest of the Seamen's Hospital Service. Admittedly, the old Dreadnounght Hospital, in which I was a patient, has a definite connection with Greenwich Hospital, but the question here is: what are the priorities for the selection of tenants from the staff of the college, the museum and the hospital?
More important still, what are the numbers and amounts of the present Greenwich Hospital pensions for seamen and marines? How many are paid to chief petty officers, petty officers, leading seamen and able seamen, who were originally intended to be paid, and what information is available to the public about them? Officers can get the information about their pensions through their societies. I know where to get information about seamen's pensions—namely, in the Appendix to the Navy List—but information about the Royal Hospital School and other educational benefits is in another publication, namely, as advertisements in the Navy List itself.
The Navy List, however, was for several years a confidential publication, not available to the public. In any case, it costs £1 10s. and the appendix 8s. 6d. Who will pay £2 for a lot of unnecessary information in these publications to try to find out something about Greenwich Hospital pensions? Why cannot all the information about these pensions and about the educational facilities be put in one document for the information of ratings and their dependants and in another document for the information of officers? Why cannot these documents be available in the Vote Office for hon. Members?
I pass to the subject of the Royal Hospital School at Holbrook. I have no intention of criticising the school tonight, but the Admiralty's administration of it. Two hon. Members, one from either side of the House, are governors and, of course, they would stick up for the school. Moreover, I am expecting an invitation to visit the school one of these summers. The fiftieth anniversary of my entry into and departure from the school has passed. I may have to wait for the sixtieth anniversary and it may be that if I reach my century I


shall be able to go there as the last survivor of a bygone age. The present régime is not very interested in the old régime.
The old school at Greenwich was started in 1712 to board, clothe and educate the sons of poor seamen, with a priority given to orphans—children who had lost two parents—then to children who had lost one parent, and, finally, to children who had both parents alive. In my time there were 1,000 at the school and a waiting list, but once the new school was started there was lavish expenditure on an unnecessary scale.
First plans were for the spending of £1 million. The money was not available, so the provision of a church and two hostels was cut out. Later, more money was available and there was the opportunity to build the church or the two hostels. Hon. Members can guess which was built. One would have thought that the hostels would have been built but, no, the church was built. It was a marvellous place. A great organ was installed of a type one would only find in an Odeon cinema. The schoolmaster who sits up at the "bomber dashboard" to play it shuts off the gadgets and plays it as a harmonium.
An attempt was made to raise the money to build the two missing houses, with an appeal for a Jellicoe and Beatty memorial, but the "beans were spilled" on that and neither the public nor the Navy would subscribe and the houses are still missing. The attitude of the Admiralty and of the Greenwich Hospital authorities is that 800 is a better number of scholars to handle than 1,000. That is simply nonsense and an excuse for not building the two missing houses.
Today, at the new school, instead of taking boys and orphans who would not receive a full education otherwise, the cream of the boys is taken—boys who could do very well elsewhere. The Admiralty is now taking the sons of commissioned officers. It was never the case before and there is no reason why it should be the case now. The excuse given in the past has been that sufficient applicants did not come foward, the reason being that sufficient publicity was not given to the education that was available. The important point is that over

a period of time we have got into a position in which poor orphans of my standing would not now be accepted. In other words, neither with pensions nor with the school is the Admiralty fulfilling the objects of the original charter of William and Mary which started Greenwich Hospital. Yet, at the beginning of the last war three of my contemporaries were captains and in command of cruisers. Two of them rose to be vice-admirals.
The greatest scandal about the school has already been referred to—the fact that fees are now charged at this poor seamen's boys orphanage. This has been done at a time when every attempt is being made to provide free education from the primary school right through to the university, and this is being achieved from public means. Why should the principle ever have been adopted in a poor seamen's boys orphanage, which was started with the main object of taking individuals who otherwise would not get the education? Then it was made into a "posh" school. Now things have gone further still and it has been made a fee-charging school in order to restrict poor people's children from ever getting in there.
Why has the Civil Lord not given a progress report? If the school is taking the type of boy originally intended for this naval orphanage for poor boys and the boys are doing well, why not say so? In the absence of a progress report, I must ask questions in an attempt to get the information. I provided the Civil Lord with these questions, so he has no excuse for not being able to provide the information.
What were the number of entry dates and the entries in the current year? What were the types of the previous schools from which the boys were entered? How many of the boys had both parents dead or the father dead or the mother dead or both parents alive? How many of the fathers were commissioned officers, warrant officers, petty officers and junior ratings? How many are paying no fees? How many are paying fees, and what amounts? Why have the estimated fees more than doubled in two years? In 1958–59, they were £23,000, but in the current Estimates they are £51,000.
The income of the Royal Hospital School comprises: Ministry of Education £2,000, fees £51,000, rent £5,000, miscellaneous £1,000, making a total of £60,000. But that is not the whole story by a long chalk. There is the figure of £534,000 in one of these documents. Mr. Reade provided a free site for the school—plenty of land—and a considerable amount of money. There is £37,360 to come from the Reade Foundation. There are investments of £100,000. The income for the Admiralty portion is £28,250. Also, from time to time Greenwich Hospital gets windfalls from prize funds, prize bounties, and so forth. So there is never a question of shortage of money. Consequently, why should any fees ever have been charged at all?
To sum up, as I have said, Greenwich Hospital has existed in various forms for three centuries. Throughout, Parliament has had control and appointed Select Committees and effected changes by Acts of Parliament, Orders in Council, Statutory Instruments, and the like. As I have said, the last Select Committee appears to have been in 1892, nearly seventy years ago. During these years great changes have occurred in the social structure of the nation and national social security services. The State is now wholly responsible for two of the main factors which Greenwich Hospital attempted to shoulder for disabled seamen, namely, medical care and education of children.
Surely the time is long overdue for another Select Committee to consider the ramifications of Greenwich Hospital, which of its original objects are still being fulfilled and which are not, its income and present disbursements, particularly overhead expenses, which of them could be reduced, and how greater benefits could be provided either by increased numbers or increased pensions. The Royal Hospital School is secure and will be continued, but it should return to its original object of training the boys of poor seamen and marines, and particularly orphans, not of officers.
The other main object which remains is the pensions for seamen and marines and widows and orphans. The question arises: who, today, are the most necessitous ex-seamen and marines and widows and orphans under the present scale of normal naval pensions and the national social security services?
The present Greenwich Hospital schemes have length of service as a factor. The longer the service, the higher the ordinary naval pension, so men who get the highest pension get the Hospital pension. On the other hand, National Service men and men with short service invalided out after Cyprus or Suez get the lowest naval pension—if any—and may not get a Greenwich Hospital pension. This cannot be right.
I admit that there is a disability factor in the pension. Nevertheless, broadly speaking, the Greenwich pension goes to the individuals with the longest service and with the highest naval pensions, whereas, on the other hand, there are people in necessitous circumstances because of short service. Similarly, the widows of these men suffer and get no Greenwich Hospital pensions. All hon. Members know of the 10s. per week type of widow. Surely this is the type of widow which should have the Greenwich Hospital pension under present national social service conditions.
The same argument applies to officers. In my time in the service, wealthy retired admirals were drawing Greenwich Hospital pensions of £100 and possibly £200 a year. When they died they left thousands of pounds. On the other hand, junior officers and their widows and orphans were in embarrassed circumstances. With only a limited number of pensions, and thousands of people eligible, there is no question but that these Greenwich Hospital pensions should go to the most deserving men and women, particularly the widows and orphans. I hope that I have said enough—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Martin Redmayne): Hear, hear.

Commander Pursey: I can still go on for a while.
I hope that I have said enough to convince the House and the Admiralty that, in their own interests, a Select Committee should be appointed to consider Greenwich Hospital and all its operations. If not, I will say more next year. The Admiralty can move for a Select Committee. If not, next year I shall put down a Motion and seek the support of ex-naval and marine Members, of whom there are a number on both sides,


and of Member for naval and other seafaring constituencies.
We must get these Greenwich Hospital anomalies and archaic arrangements cleared up and brought up to date for the increased benefit of disabled seamen, widows and orphans.

12.54 a.m.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing): At this late hour, I will try to answer as many of the points put by hon. Members as I can, but I hope that the hon. and gallant Member for Hull, East (Commander Pursey) will understand that, despite his helpful warning, if I were to answer in detail all the questions he has put, I would have to put before the House a mass of figures which in many ways are better dealt with in letter form when I can make a more careful perusal of some of the issues he has raised. I hope to satisfy him in that way rather than in a verbal exchange at this early hour of the morning.
On behalf of the staff and headmaster of the school, I have to thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) for the very generous things which he said about the way in which the school is run. He will know that I am the Chairman of the Advisory Council of the Management Committee and I greatly appreciate what he has said.
It is true that the school's income has risen appreciably, because we have reinvested and reinvested fairly wisely over recent years and thus secured a bigger income which can be used to improve pensions and to make improvements in the school. I will, first, deal with what was said by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East, the hon. and gallant Member for Hull, East and my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) about the distribution of fee payers. We have 644 boys in the school at the moment, but we said that we would introduce fees only as boys joined the school, so that about 200 of the boys at the older age limits are not making any contribution in the form of fees. That leaves 468 boys eligible to pay fees.
We must remember that for all three Services educational allowances can now

be drawn, in our case from Navy Votes, which, incidentally, was one of the reasons why we sought to bridge the gap, which then existed, between our desired expenditure and our actual income by introducing an element of fees into the system. Fees are paid in full by local education authorities or the Royal Navy in respect of 272 boys, while 52 boys have fees remitted or reduced. There are 57 boys who have their fees paid in part by local education authorities and in part by parents and 87 boys have their fees paid in full by parents—87 out of a total of 468 eligible to pay fees. Whereas the cost of keeping a boy at the school is now £335, even the last group pays only £100 a year towards the education of these boys, so that about 70 per cent. of the cost in any case is subsidised from the income of this charitable institution.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East then asked me about the distribution as between the sons of officers and the sons of ratings, and the hon. and gallant Member for Hull, East put the same question. In the current year, there were 29 officers' sons and 120 ratings' sons who entered the school, a reduction as to officers' sons on both last year's figure and the figure for the year before that. In 1957, the figures were 45 and 135 and they fell to 29 and 120.
The proportion of officers' sons is, therefore, not large. Now that we draw so many of our officers from the lower deck it would be carrying class discrimination to a considerable degree if we excluded people who have started their service in the Navy on the lower deck and become officers in the normal way. Why exclude the children of those men any more than we exclude the children of people who remained ratings, or those who go into the Navy as officers? All three categories have a chance of sending their children. I can only say that we give priority to the sons of ratings before the sons of officers.

Mr. Willis: Surely the point is that originally this school, as my hon. and gallant Friend pointed out, was for the benefit of the poorest sections of the Navy. What we have tried to stress for three or four years is that we do not want to depart from this principle. The


country is littered with schools started for children of the poor and now the preserves of the wealthy. We do not want this to happen to the Greenwich School.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: During the course of my remarks I shall seek to show that that will not happen.
The hon. Member next asked how we distributed the pensions as between officers, seamen and widows. On the officer side, we have 230 officers' pensions, seven Canada grants to children—a special fund to which I shall refer later—six Rotely grants, 23 Greenwich Hospital grants to children. In the seamen category there are 973 Greenwich Hospital special pensions, averaging 15s. a week, and 15 Canada pensions, at a much lower average, about £7 12s. a year; 362 Greenwich Hospital widows' pensions, at £27 6s. a year, six Greenwich Hospital allowances to children in orphanages at £60 a year, and 151 Greenwich Hospital allowances towards the cost of the maintenance of children at home, at varying rates from £13 to £50 a year.
I realise that those figures are probably better studied in HANSARD than taken in in the course of a speech.

Mr. Ross: Did the hon. Member say what the average was in respect of the 230 officers' pensions?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: No. I can get that information and give it to the hon. Member later.
The next point made by the hon. Member concerned the kitchens. I am delighted to assure him and my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport that at last, because of our increased income, we have been able to apply the extra money to getting on with the improvements to the kitchens. We shall not be able to start them during the summer holidays, as we had hoped, but we have in the Estimates a sum of no less than £12,000, which means a thorough overhaul and modernisation of our kitchen equipment.
We have had the best advice from the L.C.C. as to the way in which best to cater for the number in the school, and at last we are tackling a problem which has long been put off. The increase in the school estimates and in the cost per

pupil to £335 have arisen largely because of the £12,000 for the kitchens, and there is also another increase in respect of the arrears of maintenance, which we are now able to undertake, and which has been postponed year after year ever since the war.
I would just mention that the percentage of officers' sons is not very different from what it was under the previous Administration, up to 1950. This ratio has not been inaugurated by this Government or their immediate predecessors. The Opposition also maintained the same percentage.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport asked what was the reason for the increase in fees, and I hope that I have satisfied her on that score. She also asked whether we could have a description of the work undertaken by the boys at the school. It so happens that this school was founded in 1712, so that it will be reaching its 250th anniversary in 1962. That might be an appropriate occasion to publish a much fuller statement than has normally been possible, with an historical review of the manner in which the school has grown. This statement might be on the lines of that published in 1909. It would enable the House and many well-wishers of the school to have the opportunity of purchasing a full record of the boys who have passed through the school, and the work that the school is undertaking.
I think that will be more satisfactory than trying to give the House at this stage a list of people taking O level or A level, etc. I can assure the House that the Committee of Management studies these matters. At every meeting it has a report from the headmaster. He attends the meetings and we question him. We are agreeably surprised to find that the level is rising all the time and more and more are entering the sixth form. We do not want to raise this too much because we have people coming from poor and broken homes, but we like to have education pace-makers so that those who can take advantage of the academic progress can go on to university.
Another point raised by tale hon. Lady was, what careers were these boys choosing? I am delighted to tell the House that 42 per cent. of those who


left the school in 1959 chose to go into the Royal Navy. That is a steady and very satisfactory percentage. Of the others, 43½ per cent. chose a civilian career. About a third of that number tried to get into the Royal Navy but, because we at the Admiralty had raised our naval entry standards, were not able to achieve the entrance examination. As we raise our standards this will be a challenge to the school which I am sure will be readily accepted. Five per cent. went into the Merchant Navy, 7 per cent. into Her Majesty's dockyards and 2½ per cent. into the Army and the Royal Air Force.
Of leavers who did not go in for careers we had two entries to universities, two to colleges of advanced technology and four to student apprenticeships or sandwich courses, and so on. If I gave the whole list I would test the patience of the House, but I should encourage hon. Members in thinking that this school is doing a very good job.
The hon. Lady mentioned the equipment at the hospital. We took the tip she put us on to last year and sold the equipment. We did not raise a substantial sum of money, but it was better to do that than to leave the equipment as it was. We have raised the allocation of food by £2,650. We took a sample of boys reaching the age of 16 on 1st June, 1960, and found their average weight was 121 1b. as against the national average of 115 1b. Their height was one inch more than the average for the entire population at that age. So it seems that better feeding and the school health are reflected in the weight and height of the boys.
The hon. Lady asked about the timber which has been cut. The item concerns thinnings on the north of England estates and not income from the sale of timber on the school estate itself. We had cut down some trees on the school estate, but we have been carefully advised by the greatest experts about which trees to cut and we shall bear in mind the thoughtful contribution of the hon. Lady to this matter. In the northern estates, over the next thirty-five years, we hope to realise £600,000 from the sale of timber which will be cut. This will be a healthy contribution to this charitable foundation.
I now turn to a number of points raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Hull, East—

Mr. Willis: What about the increased grant from the Ministry of Education?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am sorry, I missed that point. I am sorry to have to tell the hon. Member that I must not hold out too many hopes on this. After the last debate I went to my right hon. Friend and pointed out that I was under pressure in the House and it would be useful to have a larger contribution to the school. I could not persuade him any more than my predecessors were able to persuade his predecessors. Even hon. Members, in their time, were not able to get an increase in the capitation grant. What has happened is that they have cut the teachers' superannuation grant—a grant which they used to give us—and have made it up, almost as an accounting adjustment, in a slightly increased capitation grant, but it is only a small drop in the ocean and is not very encouraging.

Mr. Willis: Have another go.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I will take the hon. Member's advice.
The hon. and gallant Member for Hull, East asked about the categories of pupils in the school at the end of 1960 and suggested that we were taking in pupils who were not deserving of it. I can assure him that we are meticulous in this matter. Of those in the school, we had one orphan; 67 whose fathers were dead; 14 whose mothers were dead; 412, the great bulk, or about two-thirds, who were the sons of ratings, either active or retired; 21 coming from the Lloyd Patriotic Fund nominees; and 129 who were the sons of officers, active or retired; which makes the total of 644 in March, 1960.
We categorise and give priority according to what we believe to be the greatest need. At the top of the priorities are the sons of seamen both of whose parents are dead. Next are sons of officers both of whose parents are dead. Next we have the sons of seamen in cases where the father's death is accepted as attributable to Royal Naval service. So it goes all the way down the priority list. There has not been too much clash and we have been able to meet all the higher priorities among


those who wish their children to go to the school.
The hon. and gallant Member asked what we were doing to advertise the benefits which could be obtained, not so much from the school as from the pensions. Anyone who applies to any naval charity—and there are several—will be given full data on this issue. We have other ways of advertising it, too. S.S.A.F.A. has full information, as has the Royal Naval Benevolent Fund. As the hon. and gallant Member acknowledged, we have notices at the back of the Navy List. We advertise Greenwich Hospital in the Charity Digest, which brings all the charitable institutions under one heading. I am quite prepared to look at any other ways of doing it, but, from the many letters which we receive and contacts which we have, it appears that among those who have had close association with the Navy, Greenwich Hospital is not unknown. Most of them know through friends or colleagues or have themselves heard of it in one way or another.
The hon. and gallant Member asked about the form in which we put the accounts this year. I agree that we have changed the form, and that was done in deference to the recommendations of the Committee of Public Accounts. I hope that they are more acceptable in this form than they were in the last.
The hon. and gallant Member also asked whether the objects of the school had changed. They have not changed. He read them out. The exception is the fifth object, for we did not feel it right—nor did my predecessor—to undertake instruction in navigation, which was one of the objects of the school 250 years ago. The first, second and third objects, in particular, are very much before us, and we are honouring them.
I want to return now to the maximum which can be granted as a pension to officers. This applies to 99 per cent. of

the officers, but there are still one or two left who receive £100. The maximum now is £50 a year, or, rather, under £1 a week. The maximum for seamen is 35s. a week, although the average over all the pensions given to seamen is nearer 15s. a week. Up to now the pension paid to widows has been 10s. 6d. a week, but under these Estimates we are raising this to 15s. a week, which is the maximum which can be disregarded in the assessment for those widows who are already in receipt of a State pension or National Assistance. So we go to the limit we can. That is why the pensions estimate is up.
But it is not a question of length of service, as the hon. and gallant Member suggested. Our main consideration with all classes of applicants is that they must show need for pension, and we check that, if need be, with S.S.A.F.A. and by local inquiry. It is supplementation of pension only, and it is not intended to be lived an. There is no fixed application to various classes. There is 8·2 per cent. expenditure on officers' dependants and 27·5 per cent. on ratings and their dependants, and the remainder, over 60 per cent., is on the school at Holbrook.
I hope that I have dealt with the major aspects. I am sorry to have kept the House so long, but a number of points were put to me. I certainly undertake to read most carefully the points which I have not been able to cover in this short reply to the debate, and will answer them on paper. I hope that that will satisfy the House, and that it will now approve the Statement.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Statement of the Estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and Travers' Foundation for the year ending on 31st March, 1961, which was laid before this House on 26th May, be approved.

SCOTLAND (HOLYROOD PARK SPEED LIMIT)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

1.16 a.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: I am very glad, even at this late hour of night, to have the opportunity of raising a matter which is exercising the minds of a very great number of people in Edinburgh. I refer to the proposal to raise the speed limit in Holyrood Park from 20 m.p.h. to 30 m.p.h.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: Shame.

Mr. Willis: Holyrood, of course, has an unique character and atmosphere which is appreciated and cherished by most of the citizens of Edinburgh, and it is widely felt by the citizens that this proposal threatens these very seriously. It is also the natural playground and sanctuary for thousands of Edinburgh families, and most of the families who use it in this way are very seriously concerned at the proposal which has been made by the noble Lord. It is also, of course, a spectacular civic attraction, with lochs and hills, probably unrivalled by any city in the world.
The Queen's Drive and the approach roads, about five miles in all, are really suitable only for limited and slow-moving traffic, and this is particularly true when cars are parked along the road itself; and a great many cars do stop when people want to look at the scenery. The only stretch along which there is a tendency to speed is the straight stretch alongside the Palace Gardens, and it is along this stretch that most of the children play. Anyone who has been into the park at weekends or at holiday times during the summer knows that along this stretch of the road, because the boating pond is there, hundreds and hundreds of children play.
It is also along this stretch that traffic seeking a short cut through Piershill to Newington travels, and although the present limit is fairly well observed, it is along this stretch that the higher speeds are reached. At present, with the 20 m.p.h. limit these speeds may be

between 20 and 30 m.p.h. I think that probably a number of people reach between 25 and 30 m.p.h. With the 30 m.p.h. we can look forward along this stretch to speeds between 30 and 40 m.p.h., probably 35 to 40 m.p.h. I think that they are quite common speeds in streets where there is a speed limit of 30 m.p.h. Indeed, in the street in which I live in London, it is common to see people speeding along at 50 to 60 m.p.h.
I believe that we could expect, along this particular stretch of the road, an increase of the kind I have mentioned, and it is precisely at this point that children play. Obviously, this will be very dangerous, and that is why most of the parents are greatly concerned. To make this increase along this stretch of road would really convert it into a road for fast moving traffic passing through the park rather than for people using it for the purpose of seeing the scenery.
I fail to understand the Minister's statement in the letter he sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Oswald), that he could see
no reason at all why any increased danger to the public should arise".
I should have thought that suddenly to increase the speed of traffic from an average of, let us say, 25 m.p.h. to 35 m.p.h. at the point where most children play in a park would obviously make the place more dangerous. There can be no doubt about that. The Minister goes on to say that he does not think that many motorists would go very fast because
it would not be in their interests
to do so. But it would be in their interests to do so along this particular stretch of road, because it is a short-cut between Piershill and Newington. That is what my hon. Friend had in mind when referring to the danger of this road becoming a sort of race track.
I asked last week, and I ask again: who asked for the change in the speed limit? The speed limit in Holyrood Park was reaffirmed only last year, in 1959. Where did the demand for an increase come from? I know of no organisation, no public body, which asked for the change. Did the corporation ask for it? Did any other organisation or body ask for it? So far as I know, there was no demand whatever


for the change from anyone in Edinburgh. Why, then, does the Minister make it?
One of the answers, of course, is that he is making the change somewhere else; but that has nothing to do with Holyrood. This is a terrible example of Whitehall knowing best. We used to hear a lot about that, and the noble Lord himself, I think, has been heard to use the expression. This is an example of Whitehall thinking it knows best.
There has been a volume of protest, and, since people knew that I intended to raise the matter in the House of Commons, I have received many communications protesting about it. The first complaint at this proposal which I heard was at the Edinburgh Trades Council, which represents 40,000 people in Edinburgh. Other organisations in Edinburgh have protested, and, of course, the Pedestrians' Association has protested. Very many individuals and bodies have protested against the proposed increase in the speed limit.
The interesting fact is that, during the controversy, there has been no great body of people coming out in favour of the change. It has been accepted that the Minister intends to make the change. That is all. The police accept that the change is to be made and they have not raised any great objections. The editor of the Edinburgh Evening News took a similar line in Edinburgh, but he added the interesting comment that the important thing was that the limit must be enforced. But we cannot enforce the 20-mile limit. The important thing is that the 30-mile limit must be enforced. Obviously, we are not going to enforce that limit any more successfully if we cannot enforce the other limit. Why? Because there are not the men available to do it. That is why everyone is so concerned about the matter.
An enormous number of people have been complaining about the matter—associations, trades unions and individuals. I have been amazed—and I say this in all sincerity to the Minister—at the number of people who in the course of conversation have expressed their very serious concern about the matter. The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that one of the letters

recently sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central said:
I consider Lord John Hope's letter on the subject quite nonsensical. I feel most strongly about his inability to see any danger in the new regulation and have written to the North Edinburgh Unionist Association withdrawing my membership.
That shows that this is a non-political issue. I have other letters and telegrams.
I beg the hon. Gentleman to believe that there is widespread opposition in the City of Edinburgh to this proposal. It is a widespread opposition on the part of people concerned about the safety of their children and about their own ability to take a quiet, pleasant stroll in the park on Sunday night.
In my constituency they come from around Piershill. They also come from other areas; from Canongate, Easter Road and Abbey Hill into Holyrood Park. They use it as a playground. They come from the St. Leonard's Ward area and from the Prestonfield area. All these areas are densely populated and include a very large number of children. The park is one of the places in which the children can play.
If the Minister has any experience of the park at all he will know that not only do they play in the park and along the stretch that I have particularly mentioned, but that they tend to run into the road because there are ice-cream vans to attract them. There is nothing there to protect the children.
Last night, a protest meeting was held in Edinburgh. The speakers included a Progressive councillor, Labour councillors and the only Liberal councillor. Another speaker was an instructor at a driving school, and ministers also spoke. Among the audience were motorists as well as pedestrians. That meeting unanimously carried a resolution asking the Minister to think again about this proposed change. The resolution read:
That thus representative public meeting is unanimously opposed to the proposal to increase the speed limit in Holyrood Park and strongly urges the Minister of Works to reconsider his decision for reasons of public safety and to preserve the amenities of this unique wild playground.
I fully support that resolution and I most sincerely beseech the Minister to reconsider the matter and to leave well alone. I am quite confident that if he will do that he will receive the heartfelt


thanks of most of the citizens of Edinburgh.

1.30 a.m.

Mr. J. A. Stodart: I entirely agree with the assertion of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) that there is opposition—how considerable, it is difficult to say—within the City of Edinburgh to this change. I shall give merely two short reasons why I do not think that this opposition is well founded. The first is that there are few people who are observing the 20 m.p.h. limit in Holyrood Park. The hon. Member has made that statement already.
During the Whitsun Recess, when this issue was raised, I took the trouble to go to the park for half a day, during which I motored all round it. Having armed myself with a stopwatch, I attempted to carry out certain calculations at three different points as to the speed at which cars were travelling. I would not pretend that these calculations could in any way be described as utterly accurate, but they gave an indication. I waited until I had seen 100 cars go by.
Of that 100, only five were travelling at or about 20 m.p.h. I am referring to the straight stretch between Piershill and Newington. Ten cars were travelling at over 40 m.p.h. and the vast majority, on both the High Road and the Low Road, were travelling at between 30 and 35 m.p.h. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East may not agree with those precise figures, but he agrees that the limit is not being observed.
Where I tend not to follow the hon. Member is in his assumption that if the limit is raised to 30 m.p.h. the speeds will automatically be raised, although not necessarily to the same extent. What governs the speed of motoring is the condition of the road, the width, the contour, the surface, and so on. I do not think that because we raise the speed limit to 30 m.p.h., it necessarily follows that the vast majority who go at between 30 and 35 m.p.h. will go faster than that simply because the notice board states 30 m.p.h. instead of 20 m.p.h.
My second point as a result of my observations is that having driven round the park—I must confess to breaking the regulations in so doing by going at 30 m.p.h.—although it would be absurd to

make out that I can speak in any sort of detachment on this matter, I cannot honestly say that I thought in any way that at 30 m.p.h. there was any danger.

Mr. Willis: What day was it?

Mr. Stodart: A Saturday afternoon. I can only give that as the experience of one who has motored for a long time and who has never had any sort of motoring incident in which I have been involved since 1938—and I sit down clasping the bench in front of me.

1.34 a.m.

The Minister of Works (Lord John Hope): I realise that some people have felt sincerely that what I am asking the House to approve is a mistake. I know also that certain attempts have been made, equally by sincere people, in certain quarters to whip up strong feeling. In my view these attempts have not been successful. Against what have these strong feelings been whipped up? It is against a speed limit in Holyrood Park of the very slow universally accepted figure of 30 m.p.h.

Mr. Willis: The noble Lord can take it from me that the very large number of people who have spoken to me, including trades councils and ward committees, have not been whipped up.

Lord John Hope: It may well be that the hon. Member has done no whipping up. I did not say that he had, but it has happened in some quarters. The very few letters that I have had or that have come to my Ministry have all exaggerated the facts in an extraordinary way. They argue as if I were attempting to raise the speed limit to 50 m.p.h., or 60 m.p.h. That is the kind of premise from which these people have argued. If that premise were sound I should 'have a very difficult case to answer.
Lot me give two examples 'of the exaggerated language that has been used. "From liberty to licence" was one expression, the licence as opposed to liberty being that a man will be allowed to drive at the "terrible" speed of 30 m.p.h. Then the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Oswald), whose answer from me was quoted by his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East wrote that I was intending to make the park into what he called a speedway. A speedway with a 30 m.p.h. limit is


really a ridiculous proposition and no one knows it better than the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central. I am sorry that he is not here to hear me say so.
All I am doing is to tidy up an untidy situation. There is nothing sacred about 20 m.p.h. It goes back to 1903, when there were far more horses on the roads than cars. In that year the Road Traffic Act limited traffic outside the parks to 20 m.p.h., and inside the parks the limit from 1904 was 10 m.p.h. In 1920 it was raised to 20 m.p.h. to conform with the limit outside and, as the House knows, in 1955 the limit was raised to 30 m.p.h. in St. James's Park and Green Park. Experience has shown that this rise has not produced any significant increase either in actual speed or in the accident rate. It is no use the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East saying, as he appears to be saying, that he does not believe it.

Mr. Willis: I did not say that. I can well believe it, but I did not think that the comparison was worth making.

Lord John Hope: I see no reason why the comparison should not hold, that is the ratio between a slight increase in the speed limit and the actual increase in the speed employed by the motorist.
So much for the story of the 20 m.p.h., and its being raised to 30 m.p.h. I repeat, in that context, that in my respectful judgment 30 m.p.h. is a very, very slow speed and a very, very safe speed. It is not an absurdly and unreasonably low speed, as is 20 m.p.h. That is the difference, and I believe that it is wrong to connive at a statutory obligation which cannot be reasonably carried out. Hence this tidying-up operation that I am trying to carry out. The corollary, of course, of what I want to do is that I must do what I can to see that the limit is observed, and that I shall do.

Mr. Willis: It is not observed now.

Lord John Hope: I am talking of what will happen, and I have plans to see that the limit will be kept.
I was most grateful for the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart), which were obviously as a result of a careful and interesting experiment by him.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East mentioned one or two points to which I should like to refer. He mentioned the point—it is a good one—about the difficulty of cars parked on the road. It has always been a difficulty, and it is a difficulty now. He will be glad to hear that the question of a car park has been under consideration in detail for some time—not in connection with what I am intending to do in this respect—and I hope he will very soon see the result of this consideration.
The hon. Member then asked: who asked for the increase in the speed limit? He observed that it was an example once again of Whitehall knowing best. The short answer is that I, as Minister of Works, am responsible for the Royal Parks, and I have no intention of trying to hive off responsibility for my actions on anybody else. I thought that by doing what I am seeking to do I was serving the public interest, and I still think so, and I believe that the majority of the public think so too. If this is a question of Whitehall knowing best, then a certain mixture of Pentlands into Whitehall and of a man who has known this park very well from childhood may not be a bad thing.
The hon. Member said that many organisations have protested against what is proposed and added that no body of opinion has approved of it. I do not know that either way there is much to be made of this, either of the organisations which the hon. Member says have come out against it or of one instance about which I want to tell him where my action has been positively supported—by the Edinburgh Accident Prevention Council. I should have thought that that was a relevant body in this matter, and I am grateful to it for its support.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned, correctly, that the police had raised no objection to what I intend to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison) also asked me about that point. The hon. Gentleman then spoke about children playing on the roads.

Mr. Willis: Playing in the park.

Lord John Hope: When the hon. Member reads his speech he will see that he said that they were also playing


over the roads. Unless they are also playing over the roads the case against me in terms of danger to children falls to the ground. Several people have made this point to me also that children play over these roads. My answer to that—it is not in the least intended to put a quick one over anyone—is: can it really be that children have been allowed to play over the roads of Holyrood even with cars going at the low limit of 20 m.p.h., and, in fact, going faster?
If that is so, I believe that we should all be doing a service by encouraging; people not to let their children play over roads where there is any traffic at all, whether the limit is 20 m.p.h. or 30 m.p.h. In fact, I do not believe that children are allowed to play all over the roads. I have not seen them. I have been through the park scores of times and have seen hundreds of children playing in the park, but I have scarcely ever seen a child actually playing on the road. Certainly, it would be a very dangerous thing to do, whatever the speed limit, but that has nothing whatever to do with this situation.

Mr. Willis: I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to misrepresent me. I said that hundreds and hundreds of children play along that straight stretch, and they usually step into the road as children do when they play along any stretch—going for ice cream, and so on.

Lord John Hope: So does a child, whose street discipline is not good, on every street in the country where the limit is 30 m.p.h. It is exactly the same thing. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this point, because if there is anything in it—there may be; it may be that the children play over these roads—I hope very much that parents will realise how dangerous it has been all these years while the limit has been 20 m.p.h. to encourage their children to do it.
I do not complain of the manner in which the hon. Gentleman raised this matter tonight. It is sad that it is so late, because this is an important matter for Scotland. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his friends who feel as they appear to feel about this will consider fairly and with care what I have said. I do not feel that I am standing out against a reasonable request or a reasonable argument. I believe that I am doing what is in the best interests of road safety—that is, trying to see that we have a speed limit which is a very slow one and which can reasonably be observed. That I believe essentially to be in the interests of all.

Mr. T. Fraser: The right hon. Gentleman said he would take steps to see that the new limit is adhered to. Will he say what steps are available to him?

Lord John Hope: I shall enlist the co-operation of the police to patrol the park in a way which will deter motorists from breaking the speed limit.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to Two o'clock.